HyperWar 42. (Not for Jutland13)

String · Post by **String** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:27 am

If you want to send in two surface combat TF's and one to arrive before the other then set one to bombard. The bombardment TF SHOULD enter combat after the surface combat TF. Be mindful though that the bombardment TF could be operating at decreaced efficiency.

It would be easy to test this, and this should be tested before trying it out, but IIRC it works like I said.

Nemo121 · Post by **Nemo121** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:02 pm

Well, well, today is a rather interesting day. We had our first carrier battle resulting in 1 CV sunk and 3 CVs receiving more than a half-dozen hits each and our first battleline engagement. Over a dozen ships have sunk today and many others are left in sinking condition. Furthermore almost 350 planes have been downed during ferocious aerial combat.

All in all the attrition of both sides' capabilities continues apace.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/24/41

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 30 encounters mine field at Balikpapan (31,64)

TF 30 troops unloading over beach at Balikpapan, 31,64

Japanese Ships
AP Yamakuni Maru, Mine hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Tamashima Maru, Mine hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Japanese ground losses:
12 casualties reported

Coastal Guns at Balikpapan, 31,64, firing at TF 30
6 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese ground losses:
123 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Pontianak at 25,58

Japanese Ships
AP Meiten Maru
AP Meiu Maru, Shell hits 20, Torpedo hits 1
AP Mexico Maru
AP Sunten Maru, on fire, heavy damage
AP Teiun Maru, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
PT TM-4
PT TM-5
PT TM-10
PT TM-11
PT TM-13

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Palembang at 20,55

Japanese Ships
CA Maya
CA Chokai
CA Ashigara
CL Oi
DD Sagiri
DD Satsuki
DD Kuretake

Allied Ships
AK Honolulan, Shell hits 25, and is sunk

Allied ground losses:
590 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Rabaul, at 61,88

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
DD Kikuzuki
DD Uzuki
DD Oboro
CA Kako
CA Furutaka
CA Kinugasa

Allied Ships
CA Canberra, Shell hits 1, heavy damage

Allied ground losses:
27 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Runway hits 2
Port hits 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Guns at Macassar, 30,69, firing at TF 4
TF 4 troops unloading over beach at Macassar, 30,69

Japanese ground losses:
82 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Guns at Palembang, 20,55, firing at TF 44
TF 44 encounters mine field at Palembang (20,55)

TF 44 troops unloading over beach at Palembang, 20,55

12 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese ground losses:
196 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 30 encounters mine field at Balikpapan (31,64)

TF 30 troops unloading over beach at Balikpapan, 31,64

Japanese Ships
AP Yamakuni Maru, Mine hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Tamashima Maru, Mine hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Coastal Guns at Balikpapan, 31,64, firing at TF 30
2 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese ground losses:
24 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 44 encounters mine field at Palembang (20,55)

TF 44 troops unloading over beach at Palembang, 20,55

Japanese Ships
AP Kensho Maru, Mine hits 1

Japanese ground losses:
36 casualties reported

Coastal Guns at Palembang, 20,55, firing at TF 44
4 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese ground losses:
36 casualties reported

The Palembang invasion force appears to be taking a real beating. It will, obviously, succeed but every AP and man lost here is one less AP or man available for the invasion of Java/Sumatra and, ultimately, India.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Palembang , at 20,55

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 9
Ki-21 Sally x 63

Allied aircraft
Wirraway x 12
Hawk 75A x 6
CW-21B Demon x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 3 damaged
Ki-21 Sally: 2 destroyed, 19 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Wirraway: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged
Vildebeest IV: 1 destroyed
SB-2c: 1 destroyed
C-60A Lodestar: 1 destroyed

Allied ground losses:
105 casualties reported
Guns lost 5

Airbase hits 2
Runway hits 14

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Pontianak , at 25,58

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 44
G4M1 Betty x 56
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 5

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 1 damaged

Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 12

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Balikpapan , at 31,64

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 7

No Japanese losses

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Kendari , at 33,71

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 27
Ki-15 Babs x 4

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 1 destroyed, 4 damaged
Ki-15 Babs: 1 damaged

Airbase hits 3
Airbase supply hits 4
Runway hits 13

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Kendari , at 33,71

Japanese aircraft
G3M Nell x 84

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M Nell: 1 destroyed, 7 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Hudson I: 2 destroyed
T.IVa: 1 destroyed

Allied ground losses:
28 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

Airbase hits 16
Airbase supply hits 7
Runway hits 62

Just counting up the numbers of Bettys here one can see that the Japanese are able to sortie about 180 Bettys in a single morning. This leads me to believe that roughly 8 Daitai of Bettys are allocated to the DEI, leaving very little for anywhere else.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 35th Division, at 49,30

Allied aircraft
I-153c x 11

No Allied losses

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 63rd Chinese Corps, at 43,41

Japanese aircraft
Ki-51 Sonia x 31
Ki-15 Babs x 1

No Japanese losses

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 57th Chinese Corps, at 47,36

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27 Nate x 12
Ki-51 Sonia x 26
Ki-15 Babs x 2

No Japanese losses

Allied ground losses:
14 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 32,65

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 2

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 5

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
CVL Ryujo, Bomb hits 1

Another 250lb hits Ryujo's flight deck.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Macassar at 30,69

Allied aircraft
T.IVa x 2
Hudson I x 3

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
AP Mikage Maru #2, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 22,50

Allied aircraft
CW-21B Demon x 3
Blenheim I x 6

Allied aircraft losses
Blenheim I: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
CL Sendai
DD Shikinami

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 22,58

Allied aircraft
Hudson I x 3
IL-4c x 3

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
AP Nichiryo Maru
AP Suwa Maru

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Balikpapan at 31,64

Allied aircraft
Hudson I x 3

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
AP Syoryu Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 24,59

Allied aircraft
Hudson I x 3

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
AP Meiten Maru

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Balikpapan at 31,64

Allied aircraft
Blenheim IV x 4
Hudson I x 15
B-17C Fortress x 5
B-17E Fortress x 2
IL-4c x 3

Allied aircraft losses
Blenheim IV: 1 damaged
Hudson I: 3 damaged
B-17C Fortress: 2 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 1 damaged
IL-4c: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
CL Nagara
CA Haguro
CA Nachi
CA Myoko

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And battle is joined. It looks like the Northern Area weather HAS worked to my advantage, as hoped. KB also sprinted at least 6 or 7 hexes in the past day and so has burned ops points it could be using to put more fighters aloft and into action. The combination of these two factors makes my first strike particularly effective.

Day Air attack on TF at 103,41

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 31

Allied aircraft
F2A Buffalo x 2
F4F-3 Wildcat x 6
SBD Dauntless x 91

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F2A Buffalo: 2 destroyed
F4F-3 Wildcat: 3 destroyed
SBD Dauntless: 21 destroyed, 43 damaged

Japanese Ships
CV Soryu
CV Zuikaku
CV Kaga, Bomb hits 4, on fire
CV Hiryu
CV Shokaku, Bomb hits 7, on fire
CV Akagi, Bomb hits 5, on fire

16 bomb hits. Unfortunately a large number of these hits were of the "Flight deck deck hit" variety which, as near as I can figure, means they did not penetrate and only caused minor fire and system damage on the actual deck of the ship. This is unfortunate as, normally, a Japanese CV hit by 4 x 500 lb+ bombs is in serious trouble indeed.

So instead of the 1 or 2 possible kills that this number of hits should provide I will have to settle for just inflicting an amount of system damage sufficient to put these vessels into port for a couple of months. That's fine though, that was my minimum acceptable result and so I'm happy to settle for it... and now to endure the counter-strike.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 101,45

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 7
D3A Val x 50
B5N Kate x 61

Allied aircraft
F2A Buffalo x 16
F4F-3 Wildcat x 37

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed
D3A Val: 27 destroyed
B5N Kate: 19 destroyed, 23 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F2A Buffalo: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged
F4F-3 Wildcat: 7 destroyed

Allied Ships
CV Enterprise, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 2, on fire
CA Salt Lake City
DD Lamson
CA Chicago, Torpedo hits 1, on fire

And the first Japanese strike is well chewed up. At the cost of 9 of the defending fighters and some serious strikes on Enterprise the Japanese strike force loses 48 of its number.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 101,45

Japanese aircraft
D3A Val x 22

Allied aircraft
F2A Buffalo x 7
F4F-3 Wildcat x 14

Japanese aircraft losses
D3A Val: 7 destroyed, 8 damaged

Allied Ships
CA Chicago, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CV Enterprise, on fire
CA Chester

Good, the Vals hit Chicago. That is the job of my CAs and the BB Colorado in my Air Combat TFs. They are there to add AAA defence and, extremely importantly, to "die hard" in drawing enemy fire onto themselves which would otherwise focus on my CVs/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 101,45

Japanese aircraft
D3A Val x 22
B5N Kate x 24

Allied aircraft
F2A Buffalo x 10
F4F-3 Wildcat x 14

Japanese aircraft losses
D3A Val: 9 destroyed, 4 damaged
B5N Kate: 7 destroyed, 10 damaged

Allied Ships
CV Enterprise, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
CA Salt Lake City
CA Chester, Torpedo hits 1

Unfortunately the damaged Enterprise proves unable to dodge the large number of torpedoes launched at it by the third strike and will now definitely succumb to its wounds.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 101,45

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 8
B5N Kate x 23

Allied aircraft
F2A Buffalo x 10
F4F-3 Wildcat x 17

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed
B5N Kate: 3 destroyed, 7 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F2A Buffalo: 2 destroyed
F4F-3 Wildcat: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
CV Enterprise, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CA Chester

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 101,45

Japanese aircraft
D3A Val x 22
B5N Kate x 24

Allied aircraft
F2A Buffalo x 12
F4F-3 Wildcat x 20

Japanese aircraft losses
D3A Val: 6 destroyed, 2 damaged
B5N Kate: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied Ships
CV Enterprise, on fire, heavy damage

And now the Japanese seem incapable of hitting even a burning hulk . War's strange. In total 83 of Japan's finest naval pilots have been removed from its naval pilot roster. This is a good afternoon's work and not the sort of losses they will be able to make up too easily. Obviously though the disband unit into named pilot pool function can give him high-experience pilots but they will be 10 to 20 points less experienced than these initial pilots and that difference could prove important later.

So, all in all it looks like I've lost Enterprise. I will also sacrifice Colorado and Chicago in order to draw enemy fire while my other two CV TFs flee. In return total losses to KB now exceed 130 pilots and planes and 3 of its carriers are lightly to moderately damaged and will require yard time. This outcome helps to greatly increase the security of my Aleutian operations and was the goal of this carrier battle so, a tactical victory for the Japanese but an operational and strategic victory for Allied forces.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 21,45

Japanese aircraft
Ki-48 Lily x 7

No Japanese losses

Allied Ships
AK Empire Elk, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Clark Field , at 43,51

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27 Nate x 30
Ki-30 Ann x 19

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-30 Ann: 1 damaged

Airbase hits 2
Runway hits 15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Batavia at 19,59

Allied aircraft
Martin 139 x 26
Hudson I x 3
Beaufort V-IX x 2
P-40B Tomahawk x 3
B-17E Fortress x 5
SB-2c x 8

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
BB Kongo
BB Haruna, Bomb hits 1
BB Ise

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Batavia at 19,59

Allied aircraft
Brewster 339D x 2
Blenheim IV x 4
Hudson I x 17
B-17C Fortress x 2
IL-4c x 3

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
BB Kongo
BB Ise
BB Haruna

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 103,42

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 25

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 2
SBD Dauntless x 23

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat: 1 destroyed
SBD Dauntless: 14 destroyed

Japanese Ships
CV Zuikaku
CV Kaga, on fire
CV Soryu
CV Hiryu
CV Shokaku, Bomb hits 1, on fire

Excellent! Shokaku took a 1000lb bomb directly through the flight deck. Shokaku will be spending a bit more time in the repair yards.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Rabaul at 61,88

Allied aircraft
Wirraway x 7
Hudson I x 3
B-17E Fortress x 2

Allied aircraft losses
Wirraway: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
AK Soyo Maru, Bomb hits 1
AK Hoeisan Maru, Bomb hits 1

Japanese ground losses:
52 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Tarakan at 33,61

Allied aircraft
IL-4c x 3

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
AP Montevideo Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 101,45

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 63
D3A Val x 3

Allied aircraft
F2A Buffalo x 9
F4F-3 Wildcat x 10

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged
D3A Val: 3 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F2A Buffalo: 9 destroyed
F4F-3 Wildcat: 10 destroyed

Allied Ships
CV Lexington

And this concludes the day's carrier battle. Tomorrow my CV TFs ( minus Chicago and Colorado) flee. It will be interesting to see what the Japanese do. If they follow me then the damage to Shokaku, Akagi etc is more minor than thought. If they move towards Japan then their speed will give me a gauge on their damage.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 34,62

Japanese Ships
DD Shiratsuyu
DD Yugure
DD Shigure

Allied Ships
SS Searaven

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat, near Batavia at 19,59

Japanese Ships
BB Kongo, Shell hits 38, on fire, heavy damage
BB Haruna, Shell hits 41, on fire
BB Ise, Shell hits 25, on fire
CA Atago, Shell hits 2
CL Yura, Shell hits 34, on fire, heavy damage
DD Asashio, Shell hits 21, and is sunk
DD Oshio, Shell hits 21, and is sunk

Allied Ships
BB Prince of Wales, Shell hits 4
BC Repulse, Shell hits 5
CL Java, Shell hits 5
CL Dauntless
CL Mauritius, Shell hits 2
CLAA Capetown
DD Edsall, Shell hits 1
DD John D. Edwards, Shell hits 11, and is sunk
DD Parrott, Shell hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
DD Van Nes, Shell hits 7, on fire, heavy damage
DD Evertsen
DD Van Ghent, Shell hits 1
DD Express, Shell hits 7, and is sunk

Excellent work! Multiple 14 and 15 inch shells pummel the Japanese BBs. Atago is virtually untouched but the escorting DDs are sunk and, early in the fight, Yura and Kongo become unable to respond effectively. It looks as though I'll be losing 4 DDs and suffering light damage to the PoW and Repulse.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat, near Batavia at 19,59

Japanese Ships
BB Kongo, on fire, heavy damage
BB Haruna, on fire
BB Ise, on fire
CA Atago
CL Yura, Shell hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
BB Prince of Wales
BC Repulse
CL Java
CL Dauntless
CL Mauritius
CLAA Capetown
DD Edsall
DD Parrott, on fire, heavy damage
DD Van Nes, on fire, heavy damage
DD Evertsen
DD Van Ghent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat, near Batavia at 19,59

Japanese Ships
BB Kongo, Shell hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
BB Haruna, Shell hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
BB Ise, Shell hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CA Atago
CL Yura, Shell hits 2, and is sunk

Allied Ships
BB Prince of Wales
BC Repulse
CL Java
CL Dauntless
CL Mauritius
CLAA Capetown
DD Edsall
DD Parrott, on fire, heavy damage
DD Van Nes, and is sunk
DD Evertsen
DD Van Ghent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat, near Batavia at 19,59

Japanese Ships
BB Kongo, Shell hits 10, on fire, heavy damage
BB Haruna, Shell hits 18, on fire, heavy damage
BB Ise, Shell hits 8, on fire, heavy damage
CA Atago, Shell hits 7

Allied Ships
BB Prince of Wales, on fire
BC Repulse
CL Java
CL Dauntless
CL Mauritius
CLAA Capetown
DD Edsall, on fire, heavy damage
DD Parrott, and is sunk
DD Evertsen
DD Van Ghent

Well, well, well. PoW and Repulse return to the fray and put many more 14 and 15 inch shells into the enemy battleships while the CLs pepper the superstructures with 6 inch fire. Yura sinks and it looks like the 3 IJN BBs are doomed. I expect to have to finish them off with level bomber and torpedo-bomber strikes but that's fine. Losing 3 BBs here will reduce the IJN Battleline opposing Java/Sumatra to just 4 serviceable ships ( 2 others are operating with KB, 1 more is in dock at Tarakan with flooding damage from a submarine attack and these 3 will either sink or require 6 months in drydock).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 34,62

Japanese Ships
DD Yugure
DD Shigure
DD Shiratsuyu

Allied Ships
SS Searaven

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Rabaul

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 2818 troops, 17 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 111

Defending force 3829 troops, 40 guns, 3 vehicles, Assault Value = 68

Japanese ground losses:
2 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Ichang

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 47427 troops, 550 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 935

Defending force 39868 troops, 260 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1142

Allied ground losses:
70 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Changsha

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 56355 troops, 677 guns, 6 vehicles, Assault Value = 1261

Defending force 55814 troops, 367 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1580

Allied ground losses:
416 casualties reported
Guns lost 9

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Canton

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 76848 troops, 877 guns, 19 vehicles, Assault Value = 1386

Defending force 45703 troops, 273 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1141

Allied ground losses:
194 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 46,37

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 940 troops, 36 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1015

Defending force 40847 troops, 219 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1149

Allied ground losses:
66 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Yenen

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 67184 troops, 809 guns, 16 vehicles, Assault Value = 1718

Defending force 58105 troops, 426 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1646

Allied ground losses:
210 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Nanning

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 22530 troops, 255 guns, 17 vehicles, Assault Value = 496

Defending force 0 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 0

Japanese max assault: 1036 - adjusted assault: 1038

Allied max defense: 0 - adjusted defense: 1

Japanese assault odds: 1038 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Nanning base !!!

And here are the Japanese forces from Thailand. Unfortunately for them in a couple of week's time my forces will move in between Nanning and the thai border and cut this force off from resupply.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Clark Field

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 27867 troops, 303 guns, 16 vehicles, Assault Value = 552

Defending force 38704 troops, 493 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1039

Allied ground losses:
1 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Palembang

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 28740 troops, 362 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 792

Defending force 3140 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 0

Japanese ground losses:
24 casualties reported

The Japanese landing force at Palembang appears to have been defeated. This is quite a significant and timely victory and fairly unusual at this stage of the war.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Balikpapan

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 1777 troops, 33 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 68

Defending force 11064 troops, 145 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 89

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Macassar

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 964 troops, 8 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 34

Defending force 648 troops, 5 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 20

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Rabaul

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 2185 troops, 28 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 68

Defending force 5166 troops, 24 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 111

Of note: The IJN CA Mogami is confirmed sunk in Tarakan harbour today as a result of damage sustained during the PoW Strike Group's attack on the Balikpapan invasion force.

So, it looks like the IJN is currently down 3 BBs, 2 CAs, 3 CLs and a dozen DDs with 2 to 3 CVs, a CVL, 2 more CAs and another dozen DDs requiring some time in repair yards. In short, it would appear that my opinion that it is possible to greatly degrade the IJN's ability to project significantly overmatching forces with relative impunity in the first half of 1942 with an aggressive, manouevrist defence which rejects the Sir Robin methodology is being borne out. Obviously, it could all go horribly wrong in the next month but while Japanese forces in the region continue to degrade due to combat losses my forces will experience significant reinforcement and, possibly, an increase in strength... the latter being wholely dependant on the rate of attrition the Japanese player is willing to accept. If he is willing to accept a significant attrition of his own forces then my strength will fall. If he tries to conserve his forces somewhat then my strength should rise.

With the repulse of the invasion attempt at Palembang and the battleline victory at Batavia the spectre of an "amphibious bounce" of Java and Sumatra has receded. I would expect significant amounts of Japanese shipping to make for Singapore such that the forces at Singapore can add their weight to the invasion of Sumatra. I doubt that Palembang or Teloekboetang will be the target zones. I expect that we will see a major amphibious invasion at the port north of Palembang once Palembang airfield is closed by repeated bomber raids. This suits my purposes very well as I'm more than happy to have a hard ground war at Palembang with more and more of the resources there being destroyed during each day of combat.

Nemo121 · Post by **Nemo121** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:16 pm

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/25/41

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Guns at Rabaul, 61,88, firing at TF 128
TF 128 troops unloading over beach at Rabaul, 61,88

8 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese ground losses:
318 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat at 20,59

Japanese Ships
BB Kongo, Shell hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
BB Haruna, Shell hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
BB Ise, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
AK Wosang

You've got to love this combat result. AK Wosang pulls up alongside the 3 Japanese BBs at night, puts two shells into them and then pulls away again to continue on its way. I am guessing that the lack of response from Kongo, Haruna and Ise is indicative of the fact that they are, indeed, very heavily damaged.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 35,61

Japanese Ships
BB Mutsu
DD Yugure
DD Shigure
DD Shiratsuyu
BB Fuso

Allied Ships
SS Sturgeon

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Rabaul, at 61,88

Japanese Ships
DD Kikuzuki
DD Uzuki
DD Oboro
CA Kako
CA Furutaka
CA Kinugasa

Allied ground losses:
51 casualties reported

Airbase hits 2
Runway hits 3
Port hits 1
Port supply hits 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Guns at Rabaul, 61,88, firing at TF 128
TF 128 troops unloading over beach at Rabaul, 61,88

22 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese ground losses:
350 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Balikpapan at 31,64

Japanese Ships
DD Amatsukaze
DD Yukikaze
DD Kuroshio

Allied Ships
SS Skipjack

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Palembang , at 20,55

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 40
Ki-21 Sally x 56

Allied aircraft
Wirraway x 9
Hawk 75A x 6
CW-21B Demon x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21 Sally: 2 destroyed, 18 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Wirraway: 6 destroyed
Hawk 75A: 4 destroyed
CW-21B Demon: 5 destroyed
Lockheed 212: 2 destroyed
SB-2c: 2 destroyed
C-60A Lodestar: 2 destroyed
Vildebeest IV: 4 destroyed

Allied ground losses:
105 casualties reported
Guns lost 1
Vehicles lost 1

Airbase hits 6
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 32

The Zeroes are almost impossible to resist and give the Japanese a decisive advantage at this stage of the war. Still, at this stage of the war I am maintaining a 3:2 loss rate. and with the Japanese losing 2 planes for every plane I lose their plane and pilot pools must be under pressure.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Kendari , at 33,71

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 22
Ki-15 Babs x 4

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 4 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Hudson I: 1 destroyed

Allied ground losses:
38 casualties reported

Runway hits 11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Manila , at 43,52

Japanese aircraft
C5M Babs x 2
Ki-27 Nate x 33
Ki-48 Lily x 12

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
C5M Babs: 1 damaged
Ki-48 Lily: 1 destroyed, 7 damaged

Allied aircraft losses

Allied ground losses:
31 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Airbase hits 4
Airbase supply hits 3
Runway hits 13

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 35th Division, at 49,30

Allied aircraft
I-153c x 16

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
13 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 46th Chinese Corps, at 43,41

Japanese aircraft
Ki-51 Sonia x 31
Ki-15 Babs x 1

No Japanese losses

Allied ground losses:
37 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 89th Chinese Corps, at 47,36

Japanese aircraft
Ki-51 Sonia x 25
Ki-15 Babs x 1

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-51 Sonia: 1 damaged

Allied ground losses:
29 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 24,55

Allied aircraft
Swordfish x 2
Wirraway x 6
CW-21B Demon x 3
Blenheim I x 6
SB-2c x 14

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
CL Sendai
DD Shirakumo
DD Asagiri

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 24,55

Allied aircraft
Martin 139 x 3

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
CL Sendai

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 23,57

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 3

Allied aircraft
Martin 139 x 6
B-17E Fortress x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Martin 139: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
AP Nichiryo Maru
AP Rakuyo Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AP Saipan Maru

Japanese ground losses:
34 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

The ships carrying the IJA Division tasked with taking Palembang, and driven off the beaches, are attacked again. This division is going to be in sorry shape at the end of this operation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 23,57

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 1

Allied aircraft
Martin 139 x 15
Beaufort V-IX x 2
P-40B Tomahawk x 3
P-40E Warhawk x 4

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Martin 139: 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
AP Rakuyo Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Nichiryo Maru
AP Yawata Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AP Saipan Maru

Japanese ground losses:
41 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

And again.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 24,56

Allied aircraft
SB-2c x 4

Allied aircraft losses
SB-2c: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
AP Genkai Maru

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 21,59

In the early morning Kongo is reported to have sunk.

Allied aircraft
Beaufort V-IX x 2

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
BB Ise, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

In the aftermath of this torpedo strike Ise is also reported to have sunk. That's two BBs down.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 21,59

Allied aircraft
Brewster 339D x 2
Blenheim IV x 11
Hudson I x 24
B-17C Fortress x 12
B-17E Fortress x 6
IL-4c x 3

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
BB Haruna, Bomb hits 13, on fire, heavy damage

My level bombers pepper the helpless Haruna. I really doubt it can survive this sort of attention whilst creeping away at 120 miles per day. At this rate it will take it 5 or 6 days to reach a decent-sized port and if it has to sustain this sort of damage each day it must surely be doomed. Allied submarines are also being vectored into the area.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 25,55

Allied aircraft
Blenheim I x 2

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
DD Hagikaze

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 25,54

Allied aircraft
Blenheim I x 3

Allied aircraft losses
Blenheim I: 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Hyuga

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 102,39

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 55
D3A Val x 55
B5N Kate x 80

Japanese aircraft losses
D3A Val: 3 damaged
B5N Kate: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged

Allied Ships
BB Colorado, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 6, on fire, heavy damage

Colorado performs its job well. KB didn't move at all. I wonder if this means Shokaku is more heavily damaged than initially thought?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 102,39

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 9
D3A Val x 8
B5N Kate x 13

No Japanese losses

Allied Ships
BB Colorado, on fire, heavy damage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Manila , at 43,52

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27 Nate x 30
Ki-30 Ann x 15
Ki-21 Sally x 6

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-30 Ann: 2 destroyed, 6 damaged
Ki-21 Sally: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses

Allied ground losses:
118 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 18

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Clark Field , at 43,51

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27 Nate x 22
Ki-30 Ann x 5
Ki-21 Sally x 7

No Japanese losses

Allied ground losses:
13 casualties reported

Airbase hits 6
Runway hits 5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 24,55

Allied aircraft
Martin 139 x 14
Hudson I x 3
B-17E Fortress x 2

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
DD Shirayuki
CL Sendai, Bomb hits 1
DD Murakumo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 23,57

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 4

Allied aircraft
Beaufort V-IX x 2
P-40B Tomahawk x 5
P-40E Warhawk x 7

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
AP Nichiryo Maru

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 21,59

Allied aircraft
Beaufort V-IX x 2

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
BB Ise, on fire, heavy damage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 21,59

Allied aircraft
Brewster 339D x 2
Blenheim IV x 7
Hudson I x 26
B-17C Fortress x 8
B-17E Fortress x 4
IL-4c x 3

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
BB Ise, on fire, heavy damage
BB Haruna, Bomb hits 6, on fire, heavy damage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 102,38

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 60
D3A Val x 57
B5N Kate x 80

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N Kate: 2 damaged

Allied Ships
CA Chicago, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage

Chicago is also pounded into dust.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 25,55

Japanese Ships
DD Hagikaze
DD Maikaze
DD Arashi

Allied Ships
SS O16

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Songkhia at 24,43

Japanese Ships
AK Sado Maru, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
PC Ch 9
PC Ch 8
PG Chosa Maru
MSW W.3

Allied Ships
SS KXVII

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 46,36

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 20073 troops, 234 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 420

Defending force 7700 troops, 58 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 240

Japanese max assault: 428 - adjusted assault: 24

Allied max defense: 244 - adjusted defense: 63

Japanese assault odds: 0 to 1

Japanese ground losses:
394 casualties reported
Guns lost 11

Allied ground losses:
105 casualties reported
Guns lost 5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Ichang

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 47719 troops, 552 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 946

Defending force 39905 troops, 259 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1142

Allied ground losses:
19 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Changsha

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 56593 troops, 681 guns, 6 vehicles, Assault Value = 1271

Defending force 55278 troops, 355 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1570

Allied ground losses:
558 casualties reported
Guns lost 11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Canton

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 77284 troops, 884 guns, 20 vehicles, Assault Value = 1453

Defending force 45405 troops, 265 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1135

Allied ground losses:
396 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 46,37

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 920 troops, 36 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1022

Defending force 40841 troops, 218 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1149

Allied ground losses:
12 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Singapore

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 32740 troops, 286 guns, 196 vehicles, Assault Value = 691

Defending force 5786 troops, 101 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 85

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 5

Japanese max assault: 718 - adjusted assault: 581

Allied max defense: 93 - adjusted defense: 39

Japanese assault odds: 14 to 1 (fort level 5)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Singapore base !!!

Japanese ground losses:
152 casualties reported
Guns lost 3

Allied ground losses:
4059 casualties reported
Guns lost 78

And Singapore falls. Less than 3,000 tons of supplies fell with it and only the unevacuable Singapore Fortress unit surrendered. Every other man present had been evacuated.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Yenen

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 67253 troops, 820 guns, 16 vehicles, Assault Value = 1716

Defending force 58032 troops, 430 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1655

Allied ground losses:
41 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Clark Field

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 27923 troops, 304 guns, 15 vehicles, Assault Value = 1050

Defending force 38976 troops, 502 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1048

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Rabaul

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 2136 troops, 30 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 242

Defending force 3777 troops, 40 guns, 2 vehicles, Assault Value = 66

Allied ground losses:
13 casualties reported

Rabaul looks like it is going to fall soon. With quadruple the AV of the defenders it can only be a matter of time before the Japanese Shock Attack and take Rabaul.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Balikpapan

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 1815 troops, 34 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 69

Defending force 11181 troops, 147 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 90

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Macassar

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 975 troops, 9 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 34

Defending force 674 troops, 5 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 22

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Rabaul

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 2165 troops, 28 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 66

Defending force 12342 troops, 79 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 242

Japanese ground losses:
9 casualties reported

ny59giants · Post by **ny59giants** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:50 pm

This game is like one of those movies that start off with a lot of action and it continues throughout the entire movie. [:D]
It will be interesting to see how Mogami adjust his offensive in the SRA especially after getting a bloody nose at the hand of those British ships and Dutch planes (plus the others).  This AAR will have a lot of Allied players re-thinking their intial strategy somewhat. [8|]
I wish that Mogami had an AAR going so I could see what he is thinking in response to your moves to date.

Great game so far and keep the pressure up. [&o] 

timtom · Post by **timtom** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:30 am

ORIGINAL: ny59giants
It will be interesting to see how Mogami adjust his offensive in the SRA especially after getting a bloody nose at the hand of those British ships and Dutch planes (plus the others). I wish that Mogami had an AAR going so I could see what he is thinking in response to your moves to date.

Huh? Did I miss something? Mog's not the opponent on this one, is he? - we're certainly not seeing his usual playstyle.

ORIGINAL: ny59giants
This AAR will have a lot of Allied players re-thinking their intial strategy somewhat. [8|]

I beg to differ (not that I want to rain on your parade, Nemo). It's no secret that the Allied are far from toothless during the initial period and that the Japanese who sticks his neck out is likely to get one on the nose. I don't think there is a Sir Robin orthodoxy - if anything, the orthodoxy is exactly this kind of fighting withdrawal. Tom Hunter and AdmSpruance have already demonstrated the efficacy of this kind of approach against Japanese players in a hurry. I think an effective counter is yet to be demonstrated to the careful Japanese player (like Mog, fx) who mounts properly planned, phased, and concentrated operations isntead of just throwing mud at you.

It takes two to tango, and, with respect to Nemo's opponent (Jutland13, I believe), this dance partner is still learning his steps. Witness, fx, the mistake of keeping KB in one TF with the resulting uncoordinated strikes. And what's KB doing in the North Pacific in the first place? Why's he risking his surface fleet to establish dominance south of the Palembang-Davao line when he should be using his airforce?

ny59giants · Post by **ny59giants** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:02 pm

I am sorry about thinking this was against Mogami. I got my games mixed up (WitP withdrawl symptoms since I cannot play this game myself due to computer problems [:(]).

I think timtom that each AAR allows a person to learn about how they themselves can improve their style of play. Seeing what a more aggressive Allied player can do successfully early in the war will get those who use a more "Sir Robin" approach food for thought.

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:04 pm

Hi, My turn 1 is ready.

Kereguelen · Post by **Kereguelen** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:26 pm

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/25/41

Night Time Surface Combat at 20,59

Japanese Ships
BB Kongo, Shell hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
BB Haruna, Shell hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
BB Ise, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
AK Wosang

You've got to love this combat result. AK Wosang pulls up alongside the 3 Japanese BBs at night, puts two shells into them and then pulls away again to continue on its way. I am guessing that the lack of response from Kongo, Haruna and Ise is indicative of the fact that they are, indeed, very heavily damaged.

Hi,

strangest naval action ever. The captain of the Wosang will certainly claim that his ship did sink all three BB's...[;)]

K

Nemo121 · Post by **Nemo121** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:27 pm

Timtom,

Well I've certainly seen far more Sir Robin than hard-fought fighting withdrawals with sharp counter-attacks in AARs. E.g. Even in hard-fought DEI encounters such as we have seen in the New Jersey AAR the action has been almost entirely aerial with very little fleet activity at all ( comparatively speaking).

The effective counter to a Japanese player who plans, prepares etc "properly" ( an extremely nebulous and inapplicable property IMO since, after all, if a helter-skelter operation succeeds at low cost then who is to say it is not superior to a "properly" planned but slower operation). Success is the arbiter and "proper" preparation tends to, at the very least, limit the rate of one's expansion in such a way that the end-point of expansion is significantly less than what can be achieved. It minimises points losses and maximises points ratios but if you were playing without regard to points then I would suggest that a slow "sure" expansion is strategically decidedly inferior to a more rapid but less loss-averse expansion.

In short the slow expansion IS its own counter since the smaller the Empire at full expansion the more rapidly it can be sliced apart later on. Whether any 1 operation can be stopped is not, in the end, the important thing it is that the 2 operations which have been foregone in order to mount this 1 "sure" operation would, if carried out in parallel, have yielded a superior strategic position ( assuming success). One can say, ah yes, but one cannot assume success? Correct, that's where a player's skill comes into play. IMO better players can run more operations in parallel with smaller margins of superiority and still be succesfull and thus maximise their strategic tempo and gains and achieve a far superior strategic position than the "slow and sure" player. Now, of course, if you decry things which maximise operational tempo etc etc as "gamey" then the slow but sure player has a justificatory shield to hide behind. I feel this is a false shield, others disagree. That's fine because we're allowed to have different opinions.

What's the problem with keeping KB together? That's what I did to good effect in my game and it paid dividends there? What I find amazing is the way people can continue to label something as " a mistake" simply because it flies against the conventional wisdom on this forum... To be honest the more I analyse given situations from basic principles the more I am convinced that the majority of the conventional wisdom here is extremely sub-optimal. If it can gain advantage then it isn't "a mistake". That it doesn't always work doesn't make it "a mistake". Keeping KB together is entirely valid and it has proven succesful in many games so I don't see where this "mistake" thing comes from.

Yes it involves a trade-off in offensive capability in return for ensuring maximal defensive capability... if required I can explain how this occurs but it is fairly obvious so shouldn't be required... and so sometimes works very well, sometimes less well. It is not, however, always a mistake. it is simply the acceptance of a set of disadvantages in order to achieve some advantages and figuring out whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages in a specific situation is what command is all about.

Why he's using his fleet instead of air force? Simply because he is trying to maximise his operational tempo. He is using his fleet AND his airforce below the Palembang?Davao line and there's no such reality as "should" be using one or the other. Using both promises greater operational tempo and the possibility of invading India early. As such he is willing to incurr risks in return for this advantage. This is reasonable and cannot, IMO, be classified as a mistake. In his situation I would commit the entire Battleline ( possibly minus 2 BBs to escort KB and absorb any torps headed for CVs) to the southern Borneo route. If anything I think his mistake was to commit any BBs to the northern route as this was never going to be the decisive route. I think his error was not in committing battleline elements to the southern route, it lay in not committing EVERY battleline element available to the southern route.

Again, seeking to achieve advantage through the acceptance of risk is not " a mistake". It is what commander's do. Some are willing to settle for minimising risk, some seek to maximise advantage, most fall somewhere in the middle. I seek to maximise advantage most of the time, Mogami seeks to minimise risk, my opponent is closer to my style than Mogamis but definitely not an all out advantage maximiser. To present these choices as mistakes is, IMO, seriously flawed. If my opponent's choices are mistakes because they assume great risk then my choices, which assume far greater risks than he is running, must be even more seriously flawed... yet they are mostly succesful.

What is KB doing in the Northern Pacific? It is hunting US forces, including US carriers. This is not, inherently, wrong and has been done by many other Japanese players in the past, sometimes to good effect, sometimes to poor effect. When we begin to label such things as "wrong" as opposed to recognising them as viable options we become slaves to conventional wisdom and conventional wisdom often leads to stagnation and great mistakes of non-commission, non-contemplation and failure to objectively analyse the objective reality of the situation.

ny59giants,
I think you're absolutely correct. This isn't about "the one true way". Any search for such things is illusory and, in the end, usually harmful to the individual or society. This is about people playing a game and posting an AAR of what results. Any such AAR is the result of the interplay of objective strategic, operational and tactical situations AND what happens when these situations are subject to different players' styles. As such every AAR we read is an opportunity to observe something new and in the observation, hopefully, examine one's own pre-conceptions. Obviously the same applies to game's we, ourselves, are taking part in. We should, if we are open-minded, learn something new from every turn and game we play.

stldiver · Post by **stldiver** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:39 pm

I totally agree with Nemo on this one. I also am playing Jutland13 and we are up to Jan 10th currently. It is my first PBEM as well as Jutland13's vs me and nemo. His similar opening strategy netted him up to palembang, plus the POW and Repulse. I adopted a fight at first then pull back strategy which has since slowed his operation in the DEI. I the two games Jutland's strategy is working very well vs mine, and less successful vs Nemo initially. But he will adapt, that is the fun of the game to not have it be predictable. I would much rather play a controlled aggressive opponent that pushes me to the limit as it forces me to think and adapt likewise.

Do not discount Jutland's style it would put many AAR's I have read to the test, the question is how would people adapt after. In addition since these are his first PBEM's I am sure he will adapt his next moves to lessons learned as have all you experienced PBEM opponents.

Just my two cents
Stldiver

Nemo121 · Post by **Nemo121** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:54 pm

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/26/41

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 36,62

Allied Ships
SS Pickerel

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 153 encounters mine field at Singapore (23,50)

Japanese Ships
DD Uranami

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 21,57

Japanese Ships
SS I-153

Allied Ships
AK Kota Radja, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Macassar at 30,69

Japanese Ships
AP Meisho Maru, Shell hits 8, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk

Allied Ships
CA Australia

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat at 24,57

Japanese Ships
AP Rakuyo Maru, on fire, heavy damage
AP Yawata Maru, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
AP Saipan Maru

Allied Ships
PT TM-4
PT TM-5
PT TM-10
PT TM-11
PT TM-13

Japanese ground losses:
913 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

The 22nd IJA Division continues to suffer heavily. It looks like more than 4,000 IJA troops from this division have, so far, drowned so it should be pretty shaken up for the next few months. Not decisively so but every little helps.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Batavia at 19,59

Japanese Ships
SS I-153

Allied Ships
AK Jalapalaka

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Palembang , at 20,55

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 43
Ki-21 Sally x 113

Allied aircraft
Wirraway x 4
Hawk 75A x 3
CW-21B Demon x 4

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21 Sally: 12 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Wirraway: 3 destroyed
Hawk 75A: 2 destroyed
CW-21B Demon: 1 destroyed
Beaufort V-IX: 2 destroyed
SB-2c: 2 destroyed
Vildebeest IV: 1 destroyed
C-60A Lodestar: 1 destroyed
Lockheed 212: 1 destroyed
Swordfish: 1 destroyed

Allied ground losses:
58 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Airbase hits 6
Airbase supply hits 3
Runway hits 29

Unsurprisingly it looks like Palembang is now a major target for the Japanese bombers. Time to pull back most of my air force to Batavia and Soerabaja.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Soerabaja , at 22,65

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 5

Allied aircraft
Brewster 339D x 15
Buffalo I x 5
Blenheim IF x 4
P-26A x 2

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Brewster 339D: 1 destroyed
Buffalo I: 1 destroyed
Blenheim IF: 1 damaged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Soerabaja , at 22,65

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 17
G3M Nell x 49

Allied aircraft
Brewster 339D x 14
Buffalo I x 4
Blenheim IF x 4
P-26A x 2

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 damaged
G3M Nell: 3 destroyed, 18 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Brewster 339D: 4 destroyed, 4 damaged
Buffalo I: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged
Blenheim IF: 2 destroyed
P-26A: 1 destroyed

Allied ground losses:
6 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 1

Runway hits 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Kendari , at 33,71

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 19
Ki-15 Babs x 4

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 3 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
T.IVa: 1 destroyed

Allied ground losses:
3 casualties reported

Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 7

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Manila , at 43,52

Japanese aircraft
C5M Babs x 2
Ki-27 Nate x 34
Ki-48 Lily x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-48 Lily: 1 destroyed, 3 damaged

Allied ground losses:
14 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 3

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 63rd Chinese Corps, at 43,41

Japanese aircraft
Ki-51 Sonia x 32
Ki-15 Babs x 1

No Japanese losses

Allied ground losses:
14 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Singkawang at 25,57

Japanese aircraft
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 2

Allied aircraft
Blenheim I x 2

No Japanese losses

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
DD Amagiri

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Singkawang at 25,57

Japanese aircraft
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 2

Allied aircraft
Martin 139 x 27
Hudson I x 3
B-17E Fortress x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Martin 139: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
DD Shirayuki
DD Usugumo
DD Shirakumo
CL Sendai, Bomb hits 2
DD Amagiri

These are minor hits only. Still, they are indicative of the improvement in experience of these squadrons over time and will help when the Sumatran and Javan invasion TFs approach.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Singkawang at 25,57

Japanese aircraft
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 1

Allied aircraft
Blenheim IV x 3
Hudson I x 3
B-17E Fortress x 2

No Japanese losses

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
CL Sendai
DD Hatsuyuki
DD Amagiri

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Singkawang at 25,57

Japanese aircraft
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 2

Allied aircraft
Martin 139 x 3

No Japanese losses

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
AP Genkai Maru

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Singkawang at 25,57

Japanese aircraft
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 2

Allied aircraft
Hudson I x 3
B-17C Fortress x 3
B-17E Fortress x 2
IL-4c x 3

No Japanese losses

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
AP Nichiren Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Meizan Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Reiyo Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
AP Zinzan Maru

Japanese ground losses:
37 casualties reported
Guns lost 1
Vehicles lost 2

And even more strikes against the 22nd Division are succesful. I officially christen this the 22nd "Hard Luck" Division.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Balikpapan at 31,64

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 2

Allied aircraft
Hudson I x 3

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Hudson I: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
AP Hokutatsu Maru

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 25,55

Allied aircraft
Blenheim I x 3

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
AP Mexico Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Belitung Island at 23,58

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 11

Allied aircraft
Wirraway x 5
P-40B Tomahawk x 6
P-40E Warhawk x 2
B-17E Fortress x 2
SB-2c x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Wirraway: 4 destroyed
P-40B Tomahawk: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged
SB-2c: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Haruna, Bomb hits 5, on fire, heavy damage

More hits against Haruna. I'll keep chipping away while it struggles to escape.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Balikpapan at 31,64

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 2

Allied aircraft
Blenheim IV x 9
Hudson I x 12
B-17C Fortress x 6
B-17E Fortress x 9
IL-4c x 3

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-17C Fortress: 2 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
CA Nachi
CA Myoko
CA Haguro, Bomb hits 1
CL Nagara
DD Yukikaze

A hit but no penetration.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Singkawang at 25,57

Japanese aircraft
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 2

Allied aircraft
Brewster 339D x 8
Hudson I x 5

No Japanese losses

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
AK Hakubasan Maru
AK Sagara Maru

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Singapore at 23,50

Allied aircraft
Blenheim I x 6

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
DD Uranami
DD Ayanami

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Batavia at 19,59

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 8

Allied aircraft
P-40B Tomahawk x 7
P-40E Warhawk x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 1 damaged

Allied Ships
AK Nora Moller, Torpedo hits 1
PG Auricula

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Manila , at 43,52

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27 Nate x 53
Ki-30 Ann x 18
Ki-21 Sally x 8

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-30 Ann: 1 destroyed, 5 damaged

Allied ground losses:
43 casualties reported
Guns lost 1
Vehicles lost 1

Airbase hits 7
Runway hits 13

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Balikpapan at 31,64

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 4

Allied aircraft
Blenheim IV x 3
Hudson I x 6

No Japanese losses

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
AP Syoryu Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
AP Chojun Maru
AP Tanba Maru

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Balikpapan at 31,64

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 4

Allied aircraft
Blenheim IV x 3
Hudson I x 6
B-17C Fortress x 4
B-17E Fortress x 2

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Blenheim IV: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
CA Myoko
DD Kuroshio
CA Nachi

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Singapore at 23,50

Allied aircraft
Blenheim I x 6

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
DD Ayanami
DD Shinonome

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Singapore at 23,50

Allied aircraft
Martin 139 x 3
B-17E Fortress x 3

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
DD Shinonome
DD Shikinami, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage

Shikinami is heavily damaged by this strike and may even sink. The lighter IJN vessels are being increasingly attrited by the Javan level bomber force.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Soerabaja at 22,65

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 12
G4M1 Betty x 3

Allied aircraft
Brewster 339D x 8
Buffalo I x 3
Blenheim IF x 6
P-26A x 1

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Brewster 339D: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged
P-26A: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
AK Nisqually

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 27,55

Japanese Ships
DD Arashi, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Maikaze
DD Hagikaze

Allied Ships
SS O19

Another DD is removed from the IJN order of battle.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Batavia at 19,59

Japanese Ships
SS I-153

Allied Ships
AK Empire Impala, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
PG Auricula
PG Freesia
AK Hosang
AK Hinsang

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 139 troops unloading over beach at Emirau Island, 60,84

Japanese ground losses:
208 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Rabaul

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 11871 troops, 64 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 246

Defending force 3696 troops, 37 guns, 2 vehicles, Assault Value = 65

Japanese max assault: 434 - adjusted assault: 157

Allied max defense: 59 - adjusted defense: 202

Japanese assault odds: 0 to 1 (fort level 3)

Japanese ground losses:
348 casualties reported
Guns lost 10

Allied ground losses:
62 casualties reported
Guns lost 6

Rabaul still, amazingly, holds. I won't be reinforcing it but so long as it holds it acts to focus and delay the IJN forces in this region.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Ichang

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 47867 troops, 555 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 952

Defending force 39903 troops, 253 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1141

Allied ground losses:
9 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Changsha

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 56847 troops, 684 guns, 6 vehicles, Assault Value = 1711

Defending force 54796 troops, 347 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1563

Allied ground losses:
157 casualties reported
Guns lost 3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Canton

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 77624 troops, 895 guns, 20 vehicles, Assault Value = 1470

Defending force 44971 troops, 262 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1137

Allied ground losses:
97 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 46,37

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 900 troops, 36 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1023

Defending force 40785 troops, 216 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1147

Allied ground losses:
9 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Yenen

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 67356 troops, 826 guns, 16 vehicles, Assault Value = 1716

Defending force 58173 troops, 432 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1661

Allied ground losses:
44 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Clark Field

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 27989 troops, 305 guns, 15 vehicles, Assault Value = 1057

Defending force 29857 troops, 388 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 822

Allied ground losses:
23 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Balikpapan

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 1867 troops, 34 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 68

Defending force 11405 troops, 149 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 94

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Macassar

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 975 troops, 9 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 34

Defending force 700 troops, 5 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 24

Japanese ground losses:
4 casualties reported

So, as you can see, Japanese light forces and transports continue to take a battering. On average about 8 ships a day are being sunk or damaged sufficiently to put them out of use for the next phase of invasions. It won't help DEI as the IJN reserves are quite deep at game's start but it should help India survive.

Nemo121 · Post by **Nemo121** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 12:04 am

I concur with stldiver, it is very easy to see something not work and then criticise. Sometimes though we do the right thing and it proves unsuccesful because of luck or because the other guy does the right thing too. Does this make us bad players? of course not.

In addition, we're all learning. This appears to be jutland's 2nd PBEM with the one vs stldiver preceding mine. For me it is my 3rd PBEM game. Have I learnt from the two which went before, definitely but to discount someone because they have played few PBEMs is, IMO, erroneous. After all, if the spirit of Hasdrubal or Zizka began playing this game they'd be inexerienced despite, certainly, being better operational and strategic minds than any of us. So, inexperience is one thing. Ability another entirely. There is, of course, an inter-relationship but this is not the same as equivalence.

I think that we need to use the word "different" instead of "wrong" and unsuccesful instead of "wrong" more often in the realisation that something different and/or unsuccesful really isn't, necessarily, wrong.

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:34 am

Hi, I'd beat Hasdrubal till his ears bled.

Anytime you send forces into contact with enemy you take risk. There is a lot you can do to negate or lessen this risk. That is what I do. I do simple things like
1. Insure my TF are within friendly CAP
2. Provide surface assrts to protect AP and AK
3. Cut off enemy from reinforcements and supply before commiting my forces to combat.
4. Make sure my units are all assigned to proper HQ, Have good leaders and are assigned the correct mission objective. Make sure they recieve supply and replacements when required. Don't multi taks units. (I don't assign 3 objectives to 1 unit. I assign 1 objective to 3 units. As soon as a unit completes it's mission it becomes a reserve for the other 2. This provides flexabilty as I can either go to a new operation with the now resting/prepping units or support the current operation with reserves already near by. In air combat it means I have dedicated groups (I never use the secondary mission)

While I concur there is more then one way to skin a cat there is a wrong way to conduct operations. Seat of your pants planning is bad. I do operate like the enemy is always where he can do me the most harm. So I take a lot of precautions that others might ignore. I can move very fast when speed is required but most often I subsitute advance planning. I prefer to hit the enemy very hard where it hurts him the most. I also attempt to land these blows where and when he least expects it or is unprepared. This does prevent me from using the "Flying cluster" style of operations.

The main difference is simple. I don't plan or attempt the Conquest conduct of war. I secure the SRA inflicting as much damage as I can while taking the shortest amount of time. Then I redeploy into a defensive posture. Post SRA offensive operations are always designed to inflict damage on the enemy at the least possible cost to Japan.
The enemy must always take into account the fact that Japan retains an offensive punch that will land a blow anywhere he remains uncovered.

Ron Saueracker · Post by **Ron Saueracker** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:50 am

I'm soooooooooooooo tired of hearing this pro game stance from the paid lobby pups! I'd love a serious debate!

timtom · Post by **timtom** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:44 am

DISCLAIMER:

No, it's not for me to lecture others how to play. You could write a book about the number of glorious f*ck-ups I've got on my conscience. And no, I'm not so pig-headed that I don't understand that there are other ways of doing things than my own.

I do, however, reserve the right to and question and critique. In a civil manner, of course

.

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Well I've certainly seen far more Sir Robin than hard-fought fighting withdrawals with sharp counter-attacks in AARs. E.g. Even in hard-fought DEI encounters such as we have seen in the New Jersey AAR the action has been almost entirely aerial with very little fleet activity at all ( comparatively speaking).

In my understanding, Sir Robin's the attempt to salvage as much as possible from the Malaya/DEI/PI area while avoiding or minimising confrontation within same. Sir Robin Extreme is pulling all the way back to India/Oz/HI, leaving everything else to the Japanese. I don't read all the AAR's (far from it), but I can't think of any pure Sir Robin's of the top of my head. Most players obviously try to salvage something - evac'ing Malaya seems to be the most common op of any size - and of course not all players fight back with equal aggression (or are given the opportunity to do so), however from my understanding of what Sir Robin actually is, I would disagree that this is the default approach, let alone a dogma. I can only think of one Sir Robin Extreme - the now defunct ADavidB vs Tophat AAR.

I don't personnaly advocate Sir Robin - strategically I think it's wron...[insert at your own discresion], sitting on your hand for 180 isn't exactly fun, and anyway I have reservations about the idea that the Allied could just cut and run.

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

The effective counter to a Japanese player who plans, prepares etc "properly" ( an extremely nebulous and inapplicable property IMO since, after all, if a helter-skelter operation succeeds at low cost then who is to say it is not superior to a "properly" planned but slower operation). Success is the arbiter and "proper" preparation tends to, at the very least, limit the rate of one's expansion in such a way that the end-point of expansion is significantly less than what can be achieved. It minimises points losses and maximises points ratios but if you were playing without regard to points then I would suggest that a slow "sure" expansion is strategically decidedly inferior to a more rapid but less loss-averse expansion.

I'm not particularly interested in splitting semantic hairs...

Obviously one has to be operationally flexible. However if a "helter-skelter" operations succeeds, it is most likely down to luck or enemy mistakes. Relying on chance is not what I would think sound operational praxis - they are common in WitP only because the players, unlike RL commanders, don't have to answer for their actions.

Further, I would argue that by the acid test of success of failure, your opponent's "helter-skelter" ops are abject failures in that he has achieved little and taken one on the nose instead. That's not a problem if he had no choice - but at this stage of the game, all the choices are Japan's to make.

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

In short the slow expansion IS its own counter since the smaller the Empire at full expansion the more rapidly it can be sliced apart later on. Whether any 1 operation can be stopped is not, in the end, the important thing it is that the 2 operations which have been foregone in order to mount this 1 "sure" operation would, if carried out in parallel, have yielded a superior strategic position ( assuming success). One can say, ah yes, but one cannot assume success? Correct, that's where a player's skill comes into play. IMO better players can run more operations in parallel with smaller margins of superiority and still be succesfull and thus maximise their strategic tempo and gains and achieve a far superior strategic position than the "slow and sure" player. Now, of course, if you decry things which maximise operational tempo etc etc as "gamey" then the slow but sure player has a justificatory shield to hide behind. I feel this is a false shield, others disagree. That's fine because we're allowed to have different opinions.

Personally I'm not convinced that for Japan to hold the largest possible parameter is better by default. It won't in itself increase the air-, sea, or ground-power available to Japan and an island is just another prison if you don't control the sea around it. Japan's offensive goal should be to destroy the enemy's forces. Holding ground is just a means to an end (unless you can get at the West Coast).

Further, getting to Phase Line X or whatever ASAP is a hollow victory if it costs you half your battleline. Japan cannot afford to lose major units needlessly. This is precisely what your opponent is doing.

Of course "maximising" - by which I understand going as far as possible as fast as possible regardless only makes sense because of the map edges. But let's not go there...

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

What's the problem with keeping KB together? That's what I did to good effect in my game and it paid dividends there? What I find amazing is the way people can continue to label something as " a mistake" simply because it flies against the conventional wisdom on this forum... To be honest the more I analyse given situations from basic principles the more I am convinced that the majority of the conventional wisdom here is extremely sub-optimal. If it can gain advantage then it isn't "a mistake". That it doesn't always work doesn't make it "a mistake". Keeping KB together is entirely valid and it has proven succesful in many games so I don't see where this "mistake" thing comes from.

Yes it involves a trade-off in offensive capability in return for ensuring maximal defensive capability... if required I can explain how this occurs but it is fairly obvious so shouldn't be required... and so sometimes works very well, sometimes less well. It is not, however, always a mistake. it is simply the acceptance of a set of disadvantages in order to achieve some advantages and figuring out whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages in a specific situation is what command is all about.

You misunderstand me. The mistake is to keep KB in ONE TF . The coordination rule also apply to Japan. It kicks in at > 200, and it looks to like this is why the strikes weren't properly escorted and came in penny-packets. It's got nothing to do with a lack of ops points, in what case they wouldn't have launched at all.

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

What is KB doing in the Northern Pacific? It is hunting US forces, including US carriers. This is not, inherently, wrong and has been done by many other Japanese players in the past, sometimes to good effect, sometimes to poor effect. When we begin to label such things as "wrong" as opposed to recognising them as viable options we become slaves to conventional wisdom and conventional wisdom often leads to stagnation and great mistakes of non-commission, non-contemplation and failure to objectively analyse the objective reality of the situation.

So you'd rather have KB cruising the SRA? There's nothing in the North Pacific of strategic importance to Japan unless you place it there. Operations that rely on enemy actions/mistakes for success are inherently flawed, IMO.

Speed of expansion seems to be your primary yardstick for success. That to me implies force concentration. Sending one's most powerful asset bar none off on a fishing trip in the middle of nowhere is hardly that. I offer a prayer of gratitude to any Japanese opponent of mine who have KB lazing around the East Pacific during this period of the game.

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Why he's using his fleet instead of air force? Simply because he is trying to maximise his operational tempo. He is using his fleet AND his airforce below the Palembang?Davao line and there's no such reality as "should" be using one or the other. Using both promises greater operational tempo and the possibility of invading India early. As such he is willing to incurr risks in return for this advantage. This is reasonable and cannot, IMO, be classified as a mistake. In his situation I would commit the entire Battleline ( possibly minus 2 BBs to escort KB and absorb any torps headed for CVs) to the southern Borneo route. If anything I think his mistake was to commit any BBs to the northern route as this was never going to be the decisive route. I think his error was not in committing battleline elements to the southern route, it lay in not committing EVERY battleline element available to the southern route.

Sure he's using both - the problem is that he doesn't seem to be using them together. IMO, Japan should generally use surface units to support the expansion of the air umbrella (Betty's back yard more like it). The Allied player doesn't really have an effective counter against the Zero/Betty combo - at least not if the Japanese player knows what he's doing. Operationally I think Japan should work to maximise its strengths. Ramming one's surface units down one's opponents throat isn't that, IMO. And a result he's not speeding up the conquest - quite the contrary. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a Japanese surrender not too far down the road.

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Again, seeking to achieve advantage through the acceptance of risk is not " a mistake". It is what commander's do. Some are willing to settle for minimising risk, some seek to maximise advantage, most fall somewhere in the middle. I seek to maximise advantage most of the time, Mogami seeks to minimise risk, my opponent is closer to my style than Mogamis but definitely not an all out advantage maximiser. To present these choices as mistakes is, IMO, seriously flawed. If my opponent's choices are mistakes because they assume great risk then my choices, which assume far greater risks than he is running, must be even more seriously flawed... yet they are mostly succesful.

The critique in the original post was entirely directed at the operational level - not at what your opponent is doing but how.
My point was simply that I'd wait to pop the champagne just a little bit longer. A successful player can either decide that he's the WitP Champion of the World or ponder how his opponent's actions, positive or negative, influenced outcomes.

Cheers,

Tom

aztez · Post by **aztez** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:13 pm

Most intresting AAR this one! [:)]

Nemo121 · Post by **Nemo121** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 5:03 pm

I'm not particularly interested in splitting semantic hairs...

Outlining the down-side of a slower, more risk-averse expansion when that has been advocated by some as superior to what is being attempted here is hardly splitting semantic hairs.

However if a "helter-skelter" operations succeeds, it is most likely down to luck or enemy mistakes. Relying on chance is not what I would think sound operational praxis - they are common in WitP only because the players, unlike RL commanders, don't have to answer for their actions.

I couldn't disagree with the above more. Operations planned with an eye on maintaining a rapid operational tempo and getting inside the enemy's OODA cycle CREATE a situation which encourage inappropriate enemy reactions. To put their success down to "luck" is an extremely fundamental misappreciation of what actually occurs.

Manoeuvrist tenets ( which I am outlining above) do not "rely" on chance. They create many opportunities for the enemy to make decisions inappropriate to the situation as it really exists by creating a psychologically stressful misappreciation of the strategic and operational situation in the mind of the enemy commander. Furthermore when the enemy does make these inappropriate decisions ( which he has been led to by the shaping of the battlefield which manoeuvrism also preaches) the manoeuvrist stands ready to take advantage of them in a supra-timely manner which introduces temporal dislocation into the mix in addition to the already present psychological and geographic dislocations.

To view this as "relying on luck" and ignoring all of the shaping that is going on is really indicative of a failure to grasp manoeuvrism. I suggest ou read Boyd and Lindt, particularly his "Handbook on Manoeuvre Warfare" as I think what you are writing shows you are failing to grasp the essence of what is being done and how it is being done.

The AAR shows WHAT is being done and I thought it was clear from what I'd previously written that manoeuvrist tenets underlay this but it seems clear that you are missing the HOW by a massive margin.

Japan's offensive goal should be to destroy the enemy's forces.

To an attritionist perhaps. That, however, is not my viewpoint. The fact that your viewpoint is avowedly more attritionist than mine does, I think, go a great way to explaining why you are failing to grasp why I would set the objectives I set and how I go about achieving them, particularly, with the type and tempo of operations used. These are all key differences between attritionism and manoeuvrism and I think, with all due respect, you probably aren't very familiar with maneuvrist thinking and thus misinterpret its aims and methods and misrepresent them in your arguments. I think you are probably doing those things honestly but you are still mistaken in your interpretations and representations IMO.

Of course "maximising" - by which I understand going as far as possible as fast as possible regardless only makes sense because of the map edges.

NO! NO! NO! NO! Maximising operational tempo makes sense because it dislocates enemy positions geographically, dislocates the enemy commander's plan temporally and dislocates the enemy commander's mental image of the battlefield psychologically. You are completely and massively missing the point and failing to grasp the psychological aspect, which is crucial here. Read about manoeuvrism and then come back to this issue. I'm sure you'll appreciate what is being done and why it is being done on many levels which completely elude you at present.

It's got nothing to do with a lack of ops points, in what case they wouldn't have launched at all.

it has been publicly stated by people in the know that a lack of ops points does not trigger an all or nothing launching of planes. It decreases the number of planes launched as the number of ops points available for launches decreases. So, I think what you are stating above is factually incorrect.

So you'd rather have KB cruising the SRA? There's nothing in the North Pacific of strategic importance to Japan unless you place it there. Operations that rely on enemy actions/mistakes for success are inherently flawed, IMO.

Ok, you believe manoeuvrism to be inherently flawed despite the fact that ALL actions are impacted by enemy actions/mistakes and that many of history's most succesful plans succeed by allowing the enemy to make a mistake and then taking advantage of same. ALL operations must be planned with an eye on the interaction between your plan and the enemy's plan ( and in assessing the enemy's plan the enemy's capabilities, wishes AND their psychological state must all be taken into accont) in order to be succesful. Again I suggest you need to read some of the better books dealing with manoeuvrism as it seems you are unfamiliar with it.

Yes, I'd rather have the KB cruising the SRA. It would leave me free to exploit the decisive strategic theatre, the North Pacific.

Speed of expansion seems to be your primary yardstick for success.

No, again a failure to grasp the goal of manoeuvrism.. My primary goal is dislocation. Geographical, temporal and psychological dislocation. Speed of expansion is one of the tools used to gain such dislocation but it is only a tool, not an aim. One must of course create the tool and the AAR really focusses on showing readers how the tools are shaped ( these tools being the destruction of ships, taking of bases, maintaining the rate of advance/production) since I felt it would be boring to people to have it explained, time after time, how the taking of base x, sinking of convoy c etc etc furthered the dislocation of the enemy's plans/commander.

Sure he's using both - the problem is that he doesn't seem to be using them together.

Oh but he is. Every single surface action I've posted since Kuching fell has taken place within range of 100 to 200 Bettys. He is using them together. It is, however, possible to dance around and avoid the Bettys and still have major surface actions occur within their range... E.g. the two major actions involving PoW's TF over the last few days took place no more than 8 hexes from airfields containing slightly more than 100 Bettys.

So, seriously, read about manoeuvrism. Your critique shows that you are looking at tools instead of recognising the underlying philosophy and the real objectives that the tools ( rapid expansion, taking point A, taking point B, sinking C ) will achieve.

aztez · Post by **aztez** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 5:13 pm

I must say that Aleutians/North Pacific are overlooked way too often.
 
In hindsight I should have build up that operational theatre eaerlier.This is actually the only place where allied LBA can be devastating along with the fact that there are no atolls around.
 
The weather will even odds in CV duels allthough Japanese still have upper hand early on.
 
In my game vs Erstad I should have pushed there much earlier and deployed more troops into region. (North Pacific) Allthough I did loose the CV duel there but at least I got some of his carriers sunk too. (I have a feeling that had this happened in South Pacific I would not have been so "lucky")

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 5:23 pm

Hi, People are refering to the coordination rules. Putting too many CV in a single TF reduces strike coordination. This is esp true for Allied player before 1944.
Op points are consumed by movement and each aircraft that takes off or lands uses 1. (So a 90 ac CV would require 180 op points per air phase to launch and recover 100 percent of it's aircraft. ) Op points are NOT normally the cause of failure to launch a strike unless the CV has moved 100 percent of it's movement in the last movement phase.
Allied players should NOT place more then 1 CV in a TF before 1943. (They can then go to 2 CV or 1 CV and 1 CVL) All the TF can of course operate in the same hex. The Japanese should never place more then 4 CV/CVL per TF (and they will live longer if they stay below 2 CV/CVL per TF) enemy strikes may only target 1 TF. So a single large strike directed against a hex containing 6 TF each with 1 CV will only target 1 CV leaving 5 to launch strikes in PM phase. TF will attempt to coordinate strikes.
Rather then 1 all or nothing attempt at reduced odds each TF will attempt to join strike of CV launching before it.

Nemo121 · Post by **Nemo121** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:14 am

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/27/41

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 34,62

Allied Ships
SS Searaven

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 27 encounters mine field at Balikpapan (31,64)

TF 27 troops unloading over beach at Balikpapan, 31,64

Japanese Ships
AP Tonan Maru, Mine hits 1, on fire

Coastal Guns at Balikpapan, 31,64, firing at TF 27
Japanese ground losses:
96 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very heavy air raids against my main airbases begin to become a feature. Losses on the ground are very high and I begin to pull squadrons out and into Batavia where my few P40s are trying to provide CAP.

Day Air attack on Palembang , at 20,55

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 43
Ki-21 Sally x 127

Allied aircraft
Wirraway x 4
Hawk 75A x 1
CW-21B Demon x 2

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21 Sally: 2 destroyed, 13 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Wirraway: 3 destroyed
Hawk 75A: 1 destroyed
CW-21B Demon: 2 destroyed
SB-2c: 3 destroyed
Blenheim I: 3 destroyed
Beaufort V-IX: 1 destroyed
C-60A Lodestar: 1 destroyed
Catalina I: 1 destroyed

Allied ground losses:
137 casualties reported
Guns lost 1
Vehicles lost 1

Airbase hits 10
Airbase supply hits 8
Runway hits 46

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Soerabaja , at 22,65

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 74
G4M1 Betty x 102

Allied aircraft
Blenheim IF x 3
P-26A x 1

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 2 destroyed, 9 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Blenheim IF: 4 destroyed
P-26A: 1 destroyed
F.K.51: 1 destroyed
Beaufort V-IX: 2 destroyed
Blenheim IV: 2 destroyed
Brewster 339D: 2 destroyed
B-17E Fortress: 1 destroyed
CW-22 Falcon: 3 destroyed
Hudson I: 4 destroyed
Buffalo I: 1 destroyed
IL-4c: 1 destroyed

Allied ground losses:
123 casualties reported
Guns lost 2
Vehicles lost 1

Airbase hits 13
Airbase supply hits 10
Runway hits 51

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Soerabaja , at 22,65

Japanese aircraft
G3M Nell x 58

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M Nell: 5 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Brewster 339D: 1 destroyed
Beaufort V-IX: 1 destroyed
Blenheim IF: 1 destroyed
CW-22 Falcon: 2 destroyed
P-26A: 1 destroyed
B-17E Fortress: 1 destroyed
Blenheim IV: 2 destroyed
Hudson I: 1 destroyed
B-17C Fortress: 1 destroyed

Allied ground losses:
59 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

Airbase hits 6
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 48

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Kendari , at 33,71

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 22
Ki-15 Babs x 4

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 10 damaged

Allied Ships
DD Stewart, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Allied ground losses:
19 casualties reported

Port fuel hits 2
Port supply hits 2

Interestingly while devastating my aerial forces this allocation of over 200 Bettys to aerfield strikes gives me the opportunity to run another surface combat TF into Balikpapan, right under the nose of a base which regularly sorties over 100 Bettys per day ( from Tarakan)... So, in two days time I'll either be down 2 BBs and a BC or up a whole load of transports and their escorts . I'm going to make various illusory "shows" to maintain the focus on my airfields. It'll hurt me in terms of planes lost but thinning out the transport herd now is a worthwhile objective.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Manila , at 43,52

Japanese aircraft
C5M Babs x 2
Ki-27 Nate x 33
Ki-48 Lily x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-48 Lily: 1 destroyed, 4 damaged

Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 35th Division, at 49,30

Allied aircraft
I-153c x 16

No Allied losses

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 46th Chinese Corps, at 43,41

Japanese aircraft
Ki-51 Sonia x 34
Ki-15 Babs x 1

No Japanese losses

Allied ground losses:
13 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 51st Chinese Corps, at 47,36

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27 Nate x 15
Ki-51 Sonia x 43
Ki-15 Babs x 1

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-51 Sonia: 4 damaged

Allied ground losses:
39 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Balikpapan at 31,64

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 2
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 7

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 damaged
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 4 damaged

Japanese Ships
AP Nanrei Maru
AP Arabia Maru

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Ichang

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 47929 troops, 562 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 953

Defending force 39928 troops, 260 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1139

Allied ground losses:
67 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Changsha

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 57124 troops, 686 guns, 6 vehicles, Assault Value = 2115

Defending force 54656 troops, 350 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1565

Allied ground losses:
157 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Canton

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 93767 troops, 904 guns, 119 vehicles, Assault Value = 1498

Defending force 44674 troops, 262 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1135

Japanese max assault: 1576 - adjusted assault: 665

Allied max defense: 1142 - adjusted defense: 1277

Japanese assault odds: 0 to 1

Japanese ground losses:
1621 casualties reported
Guns lost 17
Vehicles lost 1

Allied ground losses:
963 casualties reported
Guns lost 20

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 46,37

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 900 troops, 36 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1024

Defending force 40736 troops, 213 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1147

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Yenen

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 67512 troops, 832 guns, 16 vehicles, Assault Value = 1721

Defending force 58152 troops, 436 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1664

Allied ground losses:
117 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Rahaeng

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 37855 troops, 440 guns, 17 vehicles, Assault Value = 819

Defending force 0 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 0

Japanese max assault: 944 - adjusted assault: 912

Allied max defense: 0 - adjusted defense: 1

Japanese assault odds: 912 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Rahaeng base !!!

The orderly evacuation of Burma is continuing apace. It looks like the two Burmese Brigades will have to get out by foot but most of the rest should make it to India in good shape.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Clark Field

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 50797 troops, 562 guns, 33 vehicles, Assault Value = 1065

Defending force 29957 troops, 393 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 823

Allied ground losses:
59 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Balikpapan

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 1859 troops, 35 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 68

Defending force 12899 troops, 178 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 151

Japanese ground losses:
23 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Macassar

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 995 troops, 9 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 34

Defending force 713 troops, 5 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 25

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Rabaul

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 600 troops, 20 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 179

Defending force 3578 troops, 30 guns, 2 vehicles, Assault Value = 60

Japanese ground losses:
18 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Allied ground losses:
5 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

So, as you can see, not very much is happening. About 60 of my planes were destroyed on the ground by the concentrated bomber onslaught but this self-same concentration brings with it an opportunity to strike the enemy's convoys again so long as I offer up sufficient sacrifices at Palembang and Soerabaja. My important plane types ( B17s and Beauforts) are flown out and dispersed while types of less importance ( Blenheim, dutch recon etc) are flown in to make up the numbers and make continued strikes an attractive proposition. So far Allied losses are almost 1100 planes but combined Japanese losses are over 550. This is a ruinous rate of loss for both forces but the total loss is one I can make better far more quickly than my opponent.

Naval losses are continuing at the rate of 3 Allied ships sunk for every 2 IJN ships sunk although, looking purely at military losses, the rate is much more even. The extra ship the Japanese are sinking is, almost invariably, a merchant of which I have many to spare. So, so far so good the IJN, IJA and naval and army air forces are all suffering losses at rates far in excess of normal and are being fully occupied with this, diversionary, theatre while the defences of Hawaii and the Aleutians are being bolstered. Fully 5 infantry divisions with commensurate engineer, AAA and CD support are rapidly entrenching themselves on those islands singled out as either defensive bastions or offensive springboards. The Japanese certainly can take these islands but they'll pay in blood and time doing so and that serves my purposes just fine.

Lastly in the Phillipines we have settled into a comfortable stalemate. The IJA is held at Clark Field while my forces repair their disablements etc. Unfortunately supplies are running perilously low ( only 25,000 tons of supply are available to my entire force and this is insufficient to continue building my fortifications at Manilla. Consequently I have pulled 2 divisions and all three armoured formations out of the line at Clark Field and have sent them southward to Naga where they will drive the IJA NLF into the sea. My objective is not, of course, the NLF. My objective is to free the resources which are being prevented from producing supplies at Naga ( approximately 150 tons per day). This daily supply will go a great way to helping stave off starvation in the Manilla pocket and creating a much more formidable defence when Clark Field does, finally, fall.

HyperWar 42. (Not for Jutland13)

RE: HyperWar 42. (Not for Jutland13)

RE: HyperWar 42. (Not for Jutland13)

RE: HyperWar 42. (Not for Jutland13)

RE: HyperWar 42. (Not for Jutland13)

RE: HyperWar 42. (Not for Jutland13)

RE: HyperWar 42. (Not for Jutland13)

RE: HyperWar 42. (Not for Jutland13)

RE: HyperWar 42. (Not for Jutland13)

RE: HyperWar 42. (Not for Jutland13)

RE: HyperWar 42. (Not for Jutland13)

RE: HyperWar 42. (Not for Jutland13)

RE: HyperWar 42. (Not for Jutland13)

RE: HyperWar 42. (Not for Jutland13)

RE: HyperWar 42. (Not for Jutland13)

RE: HyperWar 42. (Not for Jutland13)

RE: HyperWar 42. (Not for Jutland13)

RE: HyperWar 42. (Not for Jutland13)

RE: HyperWar 42. (Not for Jutland13)

RE: HyperWar 42. (Not for Jutland13)

RE: HyperWar 42. (Not for Jutland13)