I like fighting FOR the base to simply draw the Allies in. We have the potential of having two major airbases at Amchitka and Umnak. They can only use Kodiak. If we can maintain the hold on Cold Bay then we can use these AF to provide cover and attack capabilities. Cold Bay is AF-1 and it could get some Fighters but they will be trashed by bombardment when that occurs.
Next turn I will start loading the Inf Div at Kwajalein and buy out the 1st Gaurds Brigade in Tokyo. That will mean that we have to wait about 10 days before buying the Tank Division out of Manchuria. Course that Division has to move down to Moppo anyway so it probably won't hurt us at all. Brad does that sound OK?
Probably be good to move move planes up to the Aleutians. We shall need more Betty and Zero. Definately want to grab a couple of Tojo Sentai and get them up there ASAP. Already have two more Base Force's moving up to Cold Bay...
Thanks for the weather update Michael!
The First Team: Take Two!
Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
RE: Cold Bay
Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
-
ny59giants
- Posts: 9902
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm
RE: Cold Bay
Your Welcome!!
A MLE and some of the fast MLs (20 knot) at Dutch Harbor might be good to load up Cold Bay and a short turn around for your subs. Kodiak and various Alaskan ports should be added to your target list. If you set your MLs at full speed they should be able to get to Cold Bay during the night phase and be back at Dutch Harbor without the Allies knowing you were even there (at least until they bump into a mine [:D]).
A MLE and some of the fast MLs (20 knot) at Dutch Harbor might be good to load up Cold Bay and a short turn around for your subs. Kodiak and various Alaskan ports should be added to your target list. If you set your MLs at full speed they should be able to get to Cold Bay during the night phase and be back at Dutch Harbor without the Allies knowing you were even there (at least until they bump into a mine [:D]).
[center]
[/center]
[/center]RE: Cold Bay
VERY good idea. I have a bunch of ML and a pair of MLE at Kwajalein. Wouldn't take too long to get up there.
Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
RE: Cold Bay
Order, counter-order, disorder.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.
RE: Cold Bay
Considering that only ONE game turn has passed since we started, discussed, and MADE this decision, I consider it pretty fast for a major change of focus and operational planning. Flexibility is a good thing!
Brad will keep up the fight in India and I (or my replacement) will strike hard in the North.
Brad will keep up the fight in India and I (or my replacement) will strike hard in the North.
Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
RE: Cold Bay
The point was not about the speed of the order but about the order itself.
It is always possible to do things quickly, the crux of the matter is not whether it can be done and done quickly but whether it is the right thing to do.
It is always possible to do things quickly, the crux of the matter is not whether it can be done and done quickly but whether it is the right thing to do.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.
RE: Cold Bay
Hey guys,
you "just" took the bases in the Aleutians because you could. YOu now want to throw in some divisions.
Don´t you thionk you should finish India and then think about spending your troops for a useless roch middle in the nowhere?
you "just" took the bases in the Aleutians because you could. YOu now want to throw in some divisions.
Don´t you thionk you should finish India and then think about spending your troops for a useless roch middle in the nowhere?
If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!
"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"
"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"
RE: Cold Bay
It is very risky for Japan to overcommitt in an area where you will be to weak anyway if they bring the kitchen sink and will have just bled you harder... I mean the whole transporting a brigade to Cold Bay so that he has to come back with more and risk more ships to take the island is good stuff, it slows their progress as opposed to them seizing the island easily, but if you end up sending too many troops in a place you can't efficiently defend for long, you will lose them for little gain.. Now is more about preparing your defense in the rest of the aleutians in the PJs rather than risking assets by counterattacking too aggressively.. you can easily lose a surface TF for little gain just trying to shoot up a few more transports... Just stand ready to pounce if the opportunity arises and it doesn't preclude from carrying out your other operations but don't commit piecemeal...
just my 2 cents.
just my 2 cents.
Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam
-
Canoerebel
- Posts: 21099
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
- Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
- Contact:
RE: Cold Bay
I agree with the "conservative" comments (naturally)!
Q-Ball, while the Allied supply of APs isn't unlimited it is very, very large. Its always good to sink AKs and APs, but, trust me, the Allies can afford to lose many, many, many transports. I lost vast numbers in my game with John and it didn't really hamper me.
I think you guys are assigning way to much value to stymiing the Allies at Cold Bay. They don't need it but you're acting like they do. A DIVISION there? Why?
The Allies are going to advance eventually - let them do so SLOWLY. Don't make their advance impossible (as it will be if a Jap division ends up at Cold Bay. If you block them, you force them to get more creative and surprise you with a more bold offensive that could really hurt you. You've got troops at Cold Bay that'll make it hard for the Allies to take it any time soon - now just use that to your advantage while building up your rear areas in the Aluetians and Kuriles to make each additional step very difficult for the Allies.
That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it!
Edited to Add: By "letting them" eventually take Cold Bay, you might be encouraging them to pursue a plodding, step-by-step campaign in the Aleutians that you can therefore predict, react to, and slow to an acceptable pace.
Q-Ball, while the Allied supply of APs isn't unlimited it is very, very large. Its always good to sink AKs and APs, but, trust me, the Allies can afford to lose many, many, many transports. I lost vast numbers in my game with John and it didn't really hamper me.
I think you guys are assigning way to much value to stymiing the Allies at Cold Bay. They don't need it but you're acting like they do. A DIVISION there? Why?
The Allies are going to advance eventually - let them do so SLOWLY. Don't make their advance impossible (as it will be if a Jap division ends up at Cold Bay. If you block them, you force them to get more creative and surprise you with a more bold offensive that could really hurt you. You've got troops at Cold Bay that'll make it hard for the Allies to take it any time soon - now just use that to your advantage while building up your rear areas in the Aluetians and Kuriles to make each additional step very difficult for the Allies.
That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it!
Edited to Add: By "letting them" eventually take Cold Bay, you might be encouraging them to pursue a plodding, step-by-step campaign in the Aleutians that you can therefore predict, react to, and slow to an acceptable pace.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
RE: Cold Bay
Ok, since the implicit didn't seem to get through let's see if the explicit does:
Order: Focus on India.
Counter-order: When India becomes difficult instead of focussing more and more on it until you overcome that difficulty you are dispersing your forces on other gambits which, while somewhat useful, do detract from your primary focus.
Disorder: Whatever strategic plan you may have had re: focussing on India and then extending elsewhere once that was done.
Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should. The acme of strategic art is NOT winning every battle you fight ( as I think you seem to feel it is ) but, rather, putting together a string of acceptances and declinations of battle which furthers your national policy objectives.
E.g. In my game vs Damian I wanted to take the Marshall Islands and crafted a plan which let me do that in 1 week despite the fact that my navy ( in particular my CVs ) were less numerous and of lesser quality than the Japanese CVs. When I took the Marshall Islands ( acceptances of battle ) I then was in the position where I had the option of declining further battles --- particularly a threatened CV on CV clash. Since it wasn't in my interests to accept that battle once the islands were all mine I declined that battle even though I could have probably had a favourable exchange rate --- tactically it would have been a win but operationally it was unnecessary and strategically it would have been foolish.
So, tactics are suborned to operations and operations suborned to strategy.
In this game ( and others ) you are allowing your tactical opportunities to drive your operations. This is a failing as once your operations are driven by tactics your strategy will be driven by the opportunities afforded by operations. You'll manage to put together some great ops but your overarching strategy will be deeply flawed. In effect you'll be the Germans on the Eastern Front in 1943, great operations, lousy strategy, massive defeats. Far better to be the Soviets, tactics, operations and strategy suborned in a hierarchical manner to national policy objectives and while no-one will write about your operations the professionals will wonder at the breadth of your strategic vision and misdirection ( I refer here, of course, to Bagration ).
Still, your choice... but I do wish you would be less defensive about things and more open to taking on board the feedback of people who are trying to point this stuff out.
Order: Focus on India.
Counter-order: When India becomes difficult instead of focussing more and more on it until you overcome that difficulty you are dispersing your forces on other gambits which, while somewhat useful, do detract from your primary focus.
Disorder: Whatever strategic plan you may have had re: focussing on India and then extending elsewhere once that was done.
Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should. The acme of strategic art is NOT winning every battle you fight ( as I think you seem to feel it is ) but, rather, putting together a string of acceptances and declinations of battle which furthers your national policy objectives.
E.g. In my game vs Damian I wanted to take the Marshall Islands and crafted a plan which let me do that in 1 week despite the fact that my navy ( in particular my CVs ) were less numerous and of lesser quality than the Japanese CVs. When I took the Marshall Islands ( acceptances of battle ) I then was in the position where I had the option of declining further battles --- particularly a threatened CV on CV clash. Since it wasn't in my interests to accept that battle once the islands were all mine I declined that battle even though I could have probably had a favourable exchange rate --- tactically it would have been a win but operationally it was unnecessary and strategically it would have been foolish.
So, tactics are suborned to operations and operations suborned to strategy.
In this game ( and others ) you are allowing your tactical opportunities to drive your operations. This is a failing as once your operations are driven by tactics your strategy will be driven by the opportunities afforded by operations. You'll manage to put together some great ops but your overarching strategy will be deeply flawed. In effect you'll be the Germans on the Eastern Front in 1943, great operations, lousy strategy, massive defeats. Far better to be the Soviets, tactics, operations and strategy suborned in a hierarchical manner to national policy objectives and while no-one will write about your operations the professionals will wonder at the breadth of your strategic vision and misdirection ( I refer here, of course, to Bagration ).
Still, your choice... but I do wish you would be less defensive about things and more open to taking on board the feedback of people who are trying to point this stuff out.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.
RE: Cold Bay
Points are well taken, and I think there isn't a doubt that India is our primary objective. Based on this feedback, I propose a slight revision.
I am not in favor of buying troops to send to the Aleutians. We are close to buying a new Tank Div, that is needed in India. Buying the Gds Bde in Tokyo would delay that. I do not propose we commit more ground troops to this theater, as they are needed elsewhere. I think Nemo and all are right here.
In terms of CV's, however, they are not going to help take India. The Allies have already pulled out of the Arabian Sea, and the last time they approached the coast with shipping they lost a ton of ships to Bettys. I have no problem committing KB up there, because KB cannot help us in India. The only thing we lose is that KB is the threat that defends the Pacific for the most part, so if we use it up north, we have to use it quickly and get out, before they can take advantage of it's presence up there.
BBs WILL help take India. We need them there.
As far as a August 3, 1942 Combat Report, all was fairly quiet this turn. The highlights:
*BB Bombardment of Bombay yields 8K allied casualties.
*They are moving a large number of ships from Aden to Australia. One of our subs spotted two groups; one consisting of 6+ DDs (4 stackers mostly), and another consisting of AP,TK,AO,AK with Dutch escort.
The DD's are probably just a ASW escort; we have had subs on that route, so it would make sense to have them there. Odds are they are NOT moving warships to Australia.
The APs are interesting; there must be troops on board, and I would guess base forces, since Australia is pretty short on that, and there is likely a huge surplus at Aden.
PS: Recall we have a house rule allowing shipping from Aden to Oz. We saw them pass Addu Atoll awhile back, but now we have a better idea of composition.
I am not in favor of buying troops to send to the Aleutians. We are close to buying a new Tank Div, that is needed in India. Buying the Gds Bde in Tokyo would delay that. I do not propose we commit more ground troops to this theater, as they are needed elsewhere. I think Nemo and all are right here.
In terms of CV's, however, they are not going to help take India. The Allies have already pulled out of the Arabian Sea, and the last time they approached the coast with shipping they lost a ton of ships to Bettys. I have no problem committing KB up there, because KB cannot help us in India. The only thing we lose is that KB is the threat that defends the Pacific for the most part, so if we use it up north, we have to use it quickly and get out, before they can take advantage of it's presence up there.
BBs WILL help take India. We need them there.
As far as a August 3, 1942 Combat Report, all was fairly quiet this turn. The highlights:
*BB Bombardment of Bombay yields 8K allied casualties.
*They are moving a large number of ships from Aden to Australia. One of our subs spotted two groups; one consisting of 6+ DDs (4 stackers mostly), and another consisting of AP,TK,AO,AK with Dutch escort.
The DD's are probably just a ASW escort; we have had subs on that route, so it would make sense to have them there. Odds are they are NOT moving warships to Australia.
The APs are interesting; there must be troops on board, and I would guess base forces, since Australia is pretty short on that, and there is likely a huge surplus at Aden.
PS: Recall we have a house rule allowing shipping from Aden to Oz. We saw them pass Addu Atoll awhile back, but now we have a better idea of composition.
-
ny59giants
- Posts: 9902
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm
RE: Cold Bay
PSS - They will be bring hundreds of thousands worth of supply with them. I would revisit your plans around Australia and how you will defend them once they get settled in.
[center][/center]
[/center]RE: Cold Bay
ORIGINAL: ny59giants
PSS - They will be bring hundreds of thousands worth of supply with them. I would revisit your plans around Australia and how you will defend them once they get settled in.
.....and planes too, don't forget. They probably have fighters on one of those ships as well.
Plans? My plans aren't too elaborate. We have very few ground troops there, because everyone is in India. I have been digging for months, so most bases have nice forts and a size-4 airbase. But not alot of rifles. We have Bettys and Zeros to keep the Allied fleet honest, but once they get P-38s, that won't be sufficient.
Can't defend everything.
RE: Cold Bay
It's taken me a couple weeks to slog through this entire AAR (problem: laptop + reading + easy chair = sleep), but I've finally made it. I'm thoroughly enjoying it, and I'm learning a lot. Thanks for that!
There is one thing I noticed at the beginning which still seems to be a problem, but not as bad as it was. I'm a great admirer of the tactics of Dick O'Kane, commander of USS TANG, and almost fully agree with his dictum: base your plans on the enemy's abilities, rather than on his intentions. I disagree slightly only because I believe there are no absolutes, and there are times when the enemy's intentions must be factored in. Even in those cases, though, his capabilities must be the stronger of the two factors. I have a feeling that if your side gets spanked anytime in the next few months, it's going to be for this reason (later, of course, we all know that the Allies will just overwhelm the Japanese, no questions asked -- it's just a matter of how much later).
There is one thing I noticed at the beginning which still seems to be a problem, but not as bad as it was. I'm a great admirer of the tactics of Dick O'Kane, commander of USS TANG, and almost fully agree with his dictum: base your plans on the enemy's abilities, rather than on his intentions. I disagree slightly only because I believe there are no absolutes, and there are times when the enemy's intentions must be factored in. Even in those cases, though, his capabilities must be the stronger of the two factors. I have a feeling that if your side gets spanked anytime in the next few months, it's going to be for this reason (later, of course, we all know that the Allies will just overwhelm the Japanese, no questions asked -- it's just a matter of how much later).
-
Hornblower
- Posts: 1361
- Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 1:02 am
- Location: New York'er relocated to Chicago
RE: Cold Bay
I look at is this way.
Considering that the Allies have to husband there CV’s to protect the lines of communications until the Essex-es and Indy-ies (sorry couldn’t help myself) appear there is few spots that he can initiate an offense with any chance of success. I feel that the Aleutians is that Spot. Again, factoring out the 3 surviving USN CV’s we’re left with LBA’s as his main weapon. With him holding Kodiak he can reach Cold harbor with B-17/24’s and your shipping will be within range of B-25’s
Just because you Can hold Cold Harbor doesn’t mean that you should. I agree with the earlier post that you should build up what you hold and husband your resources in the North. Last thing you want is a target for his LBA’s and Dash in-out of his STF DD’s from Kodiak and turn this piece of rock into a place of attrition for your units...
That’s my 2 cents for what its worth and I thoroughly enjoy this AAR.
Considering that the Allies have to husband there CV’s to protect the lines of communications until the Essex-es and Indy-ies (sorry couldn’t help myself) appear there is few spots that he can initiate an offense with any chance of success. I feel that the Aleutians is that Spot. Again, factoring out the 3 surviving USN CV’s we’re left with LBA’s as his main weapon. With him holding Kodiak he can reach Cold harbor with B-17/24’s and your shipping will be within range of B-25’s
Just because you Can hold Cold Harbor doesn’t mean that you should. I agree with the earlier post that you should build up what you hold and husband your resources in the North. Last thing you want is a target for his LBA’s and Dash in-out of his STF DD’s from Kodiak and turn this piece of rock into a place of attrition for your units...
That’s my 2 cents for what its worth and I thoroughly enjoy this AAR.
RE: Cold Bay
I don't mind fighting for it, but I would recommend to John that we keep a fragment out of Cold Bay for the units we put in; that way, worst that happens we rebuild the units over the winter for action next spring.
Whatever happens, this offensive is limited, due to weather; after Halloween, landing on anything is pretty much not feasible.
Whatever happens, this offensive is limited, due to weather; after Halloween, landing on anything is pretty much not feasible.
RE: Cold Bay
Is it possible to intercept those convoys to Australia?
Else, if you withdraw your CVs, can you protect your BBs against his CVs?
YOu need those BBs and you need the airraids on Karachi and Bombay and you will need to have an additional longrange cap.
Do you have the aitfields for this? The planes?
What is so important in the Aleutians?Why do you want to risk your carriers for ColdBAy?
Risking them for Bombay or Karachi makes sense, for Cold BAy doesn´t.
Else, if you withdraw your CVs, can you protect your BBs against his CVs?
YOu need those BBs and you need the airraids on Karachi and Bombay and you will need to have an additional longrange cap.
Do you have the aitfields for this? The planes?
What is so important in the Aleutians?Why do you want to risk your carriers for ColdBAy?
Risking them for Bombay or Karachi makes sense, for Cold BAy doesn´t.
If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!
"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"
"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"
RE: Cold Bay
ORIGINAL: Frank
Is it possible to intercept those convoys to Australia?
No, houserule prevents it. We have Addu Atoll, it would be pretty easy to put some Kates there if I could
Else, if you withdraw your CVs, can you protect your BBs against his CVs?
YOu need those BBs and you need the airraids on Karachi and Bombay and you will need to have an additional longrange cap.
Do you have the aitfields for this? The planes?
We don't need our CV's to protect our BB's. They can be protected from Shore very easily. Especially at Bombay, they won't be able to sneak up on it with CV's, we have alot of Nav Search in the Arabian Sea. Even if they did, they would expose their CV's to Bettys. We have several size-4 airbases now on the SW coast of India.
What is so important in the Aleutians?Why do you want to risk your carriers for ColdBAy?
Risking them for Bombay or Karachi makes sense, for Cold BAy doesn´t.
Good question. I think the main point: We can't do anything with CV's in the Arabian Sea. I suppose we could bomb Bombay from them, but that is a real waste of that asset. Better to move them where they make sense.
You are correct that Cold Bay is pretty useless. It's only useful at the moment because 12K Allied troops are stuck there outside of their LBA range and inside of ours. Not good for them. Once the Allies take control of the air over Cold Bay, which will probably be October at the latest (P-38), it will be time to think about getting out of there.
-
Canoerebel
- Posts: 21099
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
- Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
- Contact:
RE: Cold Bay
Q-Ball, are you guys still looking at auto-victory? If so, what is the current score and what are your thoughts about your chances.
If you're shooting for auto-victory, then that would affect your strategy in ways not contemplated in the recent commentary (at least my part of it).
You've certainly accomplished almost all of your pre-war objectives and other things to boot, so if you DON'T have a shot at auto-victory, man that's a hard objective to reach!
If you're shooting for auto-victory, then that would affect your strategy in ways not contemplated in the recent commentary (at least my part of it).
You've certainly accomplished almost all of your pre-war objectives and other things to boot, so if you DON'T have a shot at auto-victory, man that's a hard objective to reach!
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
Bombay Blast!
I just got this screenshot done and haven't read the vast commentary from when I left for the day. Don't know if Brad mentioned a little naval bombardment at Bombay! 
- Attachments
-
- 82NavalBomb.jpg (158.32 KiB) Viewed 159 times
Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.