massive bombardments in china

[vaned74]

Just for those interested. This is a bombardment attack on Sian in China - 2 day turns. After overunning most of southern china early in the way, the japanese rested, regrouped and repositioned forces, massing troops from all over in nanyang. In Nov 42 they advanced to Sian and bombarded the turn after arrival.

Here are the results.

Day 1
Ground combat at Sian (83,41)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 277168 troops, 2406 guns, 1131 vehicles, Assault Value = 9065

Defending force 120919 troops, 237 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 2862


Allied ground losses:
7103 casualties reported
Squads: 135 destroyed, 203 disabled
Non Combat: 282 destroyed, 912 disabled
Engineers: 17 destroyed, 24 disabled
Guns lost 15 (4 destroyed, 11 disabled)


Assaulting units:...
15th RGC Temp. Division...
36th Division...
53rd Infantry Brigade...
6th Ind.Mixed Brigade...
74th Infantry Regiment...
56th Engineer Regiment...
138th Infantry Regiment...
2nd Tank Regiment...
11th Division...
60th Infantry Brigade...
14th Division...
58th Infantry Brigade...
6th Tank Regiment...
1st Mobile Engineer Regiment...
1st Ind.Mixed Brigade...
13th Ind.Mixed Brigade...
1st Tank Regiment...
48th Engineer Regiment...
57th Infantry Brigade...
15th Division...
52nd Infantry Brigade...
9th Ind.Mixed Brigade...
5th Engineer Regiment...
37th Division...
24th NCPC Route Brigade...
3rd Ind.Mixed Brigade...
79th Infantry Regiment...
17th Division...
5th Recon Regiment...
17th RGC Temp. Division...
12th RGC Temp. Division...
2nd Raiding Regiment...
1st Engineer Regiment...
110th Division...
8th Engineer Regiment...
71st Engineer Regiment...
32nd Division...
7th Ind.Mixed Brigade...
22nd RGC Temp. Division...
28th Engineer Regiment...
11th Tank Regiment...
15th Ind.Mixed Brigade...
27th Electric Engineer Regiment...
59th Infantry Brigade...
23rd Division...
26th Engineer Regiment...
116th Division...
8th Ind.Mixed Brigade...
20th Engineer Regiment...
4th Tank Regiment...
22nd Recon Regiment...
1st NCPC Infantry Brigade...
1st Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion...
56th Field Artillery Regiment...
6th Medium Field Artillery Regiment...
52nd Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion...
5th Ind.Hvy.Art Battalion...
2nd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment...
Botanko Hvy Gun Regiment...
7th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion...
6th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion...
12th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion...
22nd Medium Field Artillery Regiment...
12th Ind.Hvy.Art Battalion...
2nd Mobile Field Artillery Regiment...
4th Medium Field Artillery Regiment...
1st Mobile Field Artillery Regiment...
4th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion...
1st Field Artillery Regiment...
12th Army...
8th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion...
Tonei Hvy Gun Regiment...
2nd Medium Field Artillery Regiment...
North China Area Army...
11th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion...
51st Road Const Co ...
7th Medium Field Artillery Regiment...
3rd Hvy.Artillery Regiment...
13th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion...
NCPC Army...
1st Army...
51st Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion...
20th Medium Field Artillery Regiment...
12th Medium Field Artillery Regiment...
5th Medium Field Artillery Regiment...
67th JAAF AF Coy ...
9th Medium Field Artillery Regiment...
1st Mortar Battalion...
2nd Hvy.Artillery Regiment...
15th Ind.Medium Field Artillery Regiment...
15th Medium Field Artillery Regiment...
10th Medium Field Artillery Regiment...
68th JAAF AF Coy ...
...
Defending units:...
13th Chinese Corps...
41st Chinese Corps...
16th Chinese Corps...
120th Red Chinese Division...
1st Chinese Corps...
76th Chinese Corps...
1st Construction Regiment...
30th Chinese Corps...
115th Red Chinese Division...
47th Chinese Corps...
9th Chinese Corps...
2nd Construction Regiment...
15th Group Army...
37th Group Army...
Red Chinese Army...
24th Group Army...
13th Group Army...
8th Group Army...
14th Group Army...
34th Group Army...
1st War Area ...
5th Chinese Base Force...
22nd Group Army...
4th Chinese Base Force...
18th Group Army...
7th Chinese Base Force...
2nd War Area ...
38th Group Army...
31st Group Division...
36th Group Army...
12th Chinese Base Force...

Day 2

Ground combat at Sian (83,41)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 277079 troops, 2406 guns, 1131 vehicles, Assault Value = 9057

Defending force 108625 troops, 232 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 2534


Allied ground losses:
7389 casualties reported
Squads: 44 destroyed, 145 disabled
Non Combat: 224 destroyed, 510 disabled
Engineers: 28 destroyed, 13 disabled
Guns lost 9 (4 destroyed, 5 disabled)


Assaulting units:...
6th Tank Regiment...
48th Engineer Regiment...
32nd Division...
74th Infantry Regiment...
5th Recon Regiment...
37th Division...
9th Ind.Mixed Brigade...
59th Infantry Brigade...
57th Infantry Brigade...
27th Electric Engineer Regiment...
5th Engineer Regiment...
36th Division...
2nd Tank Regiment...
13th Ind.Mixed Brigade...
116th Division...
11th Tank Regiment...
58th Infantry Brigade...
60th Infantry Brigade...
1st Engineer Regiment...
22nd Recon Regiment...
14th Division...
138th Infantry Regiment...
11th Division...
2nd Raiding Regiment...
24th NCPC Route Brigade...
28th Engineer Regiment...
53rd Infantry Brigade...
17th Division...
22nd RGC Temp. Division...
8th Ind.Mixed Brigade...
4th Tank Regiment...
17th RGC Temp. Division...
23rd Division...
26th Engineer Regiment...
6th Ind.Mixed Brigade...
79th Infantry Regiment...
8th Engineer Regiment...
20th Engineer Regiment...
1st Mobile Engineer Regiment...
7th Ind.Mixed Brigade...
71st Engineer Regiment...
3rd Ind.Mixed Brigade...
56th Engineer Regiment...
1st Ind.Mixed Brigade...
15th Ind.Mixed Brigade...
52nd Infantry Brigade...
12th RGC Temp. Division...
15th Division...
1st Tank Regiment...
110th Division...
15th RGC Temp. Division...
1st NCPC Infantry Brigade...
NCPC Army...
10th Medium Field Artillery Regiment...
15th Ind.Medium Field Artillery Regiment...
12th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion...
North China Area Army...
2nd Hvy.Artillery Regiment...
8th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion...
56th Field Artillery Regiment...
13th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion...
51st Road Const Co ...
3rd Hvy.Artillery Regiment...
2nd Mobile Field Artillery Regiment...
22nd Medium Field Artillery Regiment...
11th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion...
6th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion...
4th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion...
4th Medium Field Artillery Regiment...
1st Mortar Battalion...
1st Army...
7th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion...
9th Medium Field Artillery Regiment...
Tonei Hvy Gun Regiment...
6th Medium Field Artillery Regiment...
12th Army...
1st Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion...
67th JAAF AF Coy ...
1st Mobile Field Artillery Regiment...
1st Field Artillery Regiment...
15th Medium Field Artillery Regiment...
20th Medium Field Artillery Regiment...
5th Ind.Hvy.Art Battalion...
2nd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment...
Botanko Hvy Gun Regiment...
12th Ind.Hvy.Art Battalion...
5th Medium Field Artillery Regiment...
52nd Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion...
51st Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion...
12th Medium Field Artillery Regiment...
7th Medium Field Artillery Regiment...
2nd Medium Field Artillery Regiment...
68th JAAF AF Coy ...
...
Defending units:...
16th Chinese Corps...
120th Red Chinese Division...
41st Chinese Corps...
1st Chinese Corps...
76th Chinese Corps...
115th Red Chinese Division...
1st Construction Regiment...
30th Chinese Corps...
47th Chinese Corps...
13th Chinese Corps...
9th Chinese Corps...
2nd Construction Regiment...
34th Group Army...
37th Group Army...
24th Group Army...
2nd War Area ...
7th Chinese Base Force...
18th Group Army...
15th Group Army...
4th Chinese Base Force...
36th Group Army...
22nd Group Army...
13th Group Army...
8th Group Army...
31st Group Division...
14th Group Army...
1st War Area ...
38th Group Army...
Red Chinese Army...
5th Chinese Base Force...
12th Chinese Base Force...

[vaned74]

units committed on the part of japan:

10 full divisions
7 armored units
10 engineering regiments (assault)
14 ija brigades (normal, mixed)
4 ija regiments (inf, raiding)
a few NCPC units, army and corps hqs, and some construction, base force engineers

artillery committed:

7 hvy art battalions
3 ind mortar
4 field arty rgts
12 med fld arty rgt
1 mtn gun rgt
1 mtn gun bn
1 mortar bn
4 hvy gun rgt

total av about 9,700

still about 9,600 av in manchuria and another 4,000 in various places in china, garrisons or around kweiyang, chihkiang, kunming to hold off the chinese armies in chungking

[vaned74]

and this is indeed still substantially less than half the heavy artillery available to japan - there are still about 5 ind hvy art bns not committed and one regiment of 24 32cm mortars (worth about 4-5 battalions).  Call it maybe 30% of the heavy artillery

this result seems to be true regardless of heavy artillery, once you mass 10 divisions and 14 brigades, your dealing with about 40-50 arty pieces per division and 20-30 per brigade - the equivalent of about 20-25 independent arty regiments just in organic artillery

[Jim D Burns]

The notion that any two day bombardment in WWII could outright destroy almost an entire division of combat troops and then a Corps worth of non-combat troops is simply absurd. Artillery fire in game needs to stop allowing bombardment attacks to affect an entire defending stack. At most one or two of the best (highest AV) defending units should suffer the attack.

When I was doing in depth research on the Normandy Campaign, I read a study/report that said only about 38% of the Panzer Lehr Division was actually rendered combat ineffective (dead/wounded men and destroyed/damaged equipment) by the huge air and land bombardment that saturated the division as Operation Cobra got underway.

The study/report was done several days or perhaps a little over a week after the battle, so battle casualties from the ground troop assault were also included in the figures. I should note there were FAR more artillery tubes in that bombardment against a single division than what Japan has in your above example. And then there were thousands of tons of bombs dropped by the airforce as well.

The real nasty effect of the bombardment wasn’t the outright casualties caused; rather it was the shock (disruption and fatigue) that was suffered by the unit. It basically had no command control abilities left and its inability to function as a coordinated combat command is what allowed the massive US breakthrough to then occur.

But individual elements of the Panzer Lehr Division were still able to preserve their fighting power and withdraw their men and equipment in relatively decent shape considering what they had just suffered.

I don’t remember what the outright dead and destroyed percentages were, but it probably didn’t exceed 15% for the period of days/weeks that the unit was reporting on. Artillery in game as it currently is has no basis in reality. It acts more like tactical nukes.

Jim

Edit: Ok found this, this is an excerpt from a book by the same author. http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normand ... /lehr.html

(Normandy 1944, German Military Organization, Combat Power and Organizational Effectiveness". The ISBN number is 0-921991-56-8.)


Here is the section on Cobra:

Until operation Cobra the division remained in the area west and northwest of St. Lô. On 20 July the Pz.Aufkl.Abt. 130 and the II./Pz.Gren.Rgt. 902 were withdrawn for refitting.23 These were placed in the Percy area.24

On 21 July the division had the following artillery: I./Pz.Art.Rgt. 130 with 1-3. (3 lFH each); II./Pz.Art.Rgt. 130 with 4. (3 x Wespe), 5. (5 x Wespe) and 6. (2 x Hummel); III./Pz.Art.Rgt. 130 with 7. (3 x 15,2 cm H), 8. (2 x sFH) and 9. (4 x 10 cm Kan); 311. Flak-Abt. (1-3. with 6 x 8,8 cm each).25

Two days later the division had three battalions rated as "schwach" and two were rated as "abgekämpft". Also five other battalions were subordinated to Pz.Lehr. 26

During 24 and 25 July heavy bombers targeted the positions held by Pz.Lehr to pave the way for the ground units attacking within the framework of operation Cobra. The effects of this carpet-bombing have evoked much controversy.

According to the post-war manuscript by Bayerlein the division lost about 950 men 24-25 July, while other units subordinated to the division lost another 1 200 men.27 He also estimated that about 50 % of the soldiers killed and wounded during those two days were the result of the carpet-bombing.28 However most of the losses during these two days were probably mainly recorded as missing. During July the Pz.Lehr division lost 347 men killed in action, 1 144 wounded and 1 480 missing.29 It was explicitly stated that the majority of the missing were incurred due to the carpet-bombings.

Probably most casualties were not men killed or wounded by the bombing, rather they were stunned and taken prisoner when the US ground forces advanced. According to Ritgen, who at the time commanded the Pz.Kpf.Wg. IV battalion30, no Pz IV was hit by the bombardment since they had been withdrawn to constitute a reserve31. Also he asserts that only very few Panthers and tank destroyers were destroyed during the bombardment.32

Again it seems that carpet-bombings did not kill and wound large numbers of soldiers and neither does the available evidence indicate large-scale destruction of equipment. The important effect was the disruption caused and the effect on the morale of the men subjected to such an air attack. In fact the short bombings on 24 and 25 June caused almost 900 casualties on the US side.33 Probably this was not far from the losses inflicted on the Germans.

Already before operation Cobra the Pz.Lehr was seriously depleted. Casualties during June and July totaled 5 943 officers and men. During the same period 3 437 replacements and convalescents arrived at the division.34 Consequently it was short of 2 506 men compared to 1 June 1944. Since the infantry endured the vast majority of the casualties the division was almost deprived of riflemen. This meant that the tanks and the artillery constituted the backbone of the defense. However these two arms suffered from serious shortages of ammunition and fuel.35 Consequently the Pz.Lehr and its sub-ordinat-ed units, disrupted by the bombardment, could not resist the 140 000 men assembled for operation Cobra.36

There was a tank repair workshop at Cerisy-le-Selle, where about 30 tanks had been assembled for repairs. Most of these had to be abandoned on 27 July when US forces closed in.37 When the American units advanced towards Avranches the Pz.Lehr was subordinated to the 47. Pz.Korps.38

On 1 August the Pz.Lehr had a strength of 11 018 men and had 33 tanks and assault guns operational and a further 44 in workshops. Artillery was more scarce. The division only had nine howitzers ready for action.39 One reason for this was that the I./Pz.Art.Rgt. 130 had been involved in ground combat with elements of the US 3rd Armoured division northwest of Marigny on 26 July.40 The division had 391 combat ready SPW and a further 54 in short-term repair.41

The I./Pz.Rgt. 6 still had 89 % of its authorized manpower strength. The II./Pz.Rgt. 130 was less fortunate since it only had 63 % of authorized manpower strength.42

So I wasn't remembering the 38% figure correctly. Only one regiment had suffered that level of loss, the other still had 89% strength after two months of fighting in Normandy and Cobra.

[Ketza]

Wow that is a huge stack of Japanese. I dont think anything would stop it.

[castor troy]

bombardments have been looked at for patch 2, we will see how it was dealt with...

[morganbj]

Another issue is the number of units able to attack in a 46 mile hex.  THAT's absurd.

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

Another issue is the number of units able to attack in a 46 mile hex.  THAT's absurd.

I wonder how many would be reasonable for a 46 mile hex? I think some guys on here will disagree with this and provide some spiffy numbers to show how the concept of stacking limits is "not realistic."

By my calculations a 46-mile long transit is 242,880 feet across. If you take a simplisitic model in which attackers are lined up shoulder-to-shoulder and each guy occupies about 3 feet, then there would be room for 80,960 frontal assaulters to line up shoulder to shoulder in a 46 mile long transit. Of course, that doesn't take account of the available space along the orthogonal axis either.

277079 troops, 2406 guns, 1131 vehicles . . .

but if you assume a 4 to 1 ratio of support to combat troops (?) then that is only about 69,269.75 combat troops.

[vinnie71]

Considering that during WWI each division occupied 6 Km at most, even the divisions alone would have not entered the place. Possibly the two great street battles of WWII could provide a better guide (Stalingrad and Berlin). In both limited frontages meant that there were only a few divisions up front with others waiting in reserve to rotate to the front lines.
 
Does AE actually simulate this situation?

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: Offworlder

Considering that during WWI each division occupied 6 Km at most, even the divisions alone would have not entered the place. Possibly the two great street battles of WWII could provide a better guide (Stalingrad and Berlin). In both limited frontages meant that there were only a few divisions up front with others waiting in reserve to rotate to the front lines.

Does AE actually simulate this situation?

Using that measure for stacking limit: 6km = 3.73 miles per divions.

Thus a 46 mile transit / 3.73 = 12.34 Divisions could conceivably line up in a straight line across a 46-mile hex.

Add in the space inside the hex but behind that frontline and you've got a lot of geography. Consider that with a curved front line you could easily get a 50 or even 60 mile front line inside a 46-mile hex (without an opponent being surrounded even) . . .

Moreover, I guess that the 6km front per Div number you cite is under "average normal" circumstances, and thus does not represent anything like an upper boundary on effective combat densities that _could_ have been done. If 12.34 Div per 46 mile frontage was "normal" at what density (all else being equal) would there have been negative repurcussions? 15Div/46miles? 19Div/46miles?

Thus, it still seems hard to arrive at a firm conclusion based on simple estimates that concentrations like those in the cited example are way too much. I agree it is a LOT of men in a small area, but can we really objectively say it is "absurdly too many" or a fundamental breach of physical or historical reality (historical in the sense of what _could_ have happened, obviously not what _did_ happen . . .)

Not that I'm saying that 278K Japansese soldiers in one hex either is or is not too many. Just trying playing neutral artithmeticizer here [:D]

ADDIT: also I think that this issue I'm focusing on of stacking limit is a related but separate one to the impact of bombardment. Jim's historically-well-founded argument seems totally right from my naive standpoint.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

Another issue is the number of units able to attack in a 46 mile hex.  THAT's absurd.

To the point of madness. We have looked at this artillery stuff, but as long as some players insist on making monster stacks like this, the whining about "absurd results" sounds rather hollow.

[vaned74]

Actually, the stacks aren't that massive.  Okinawa (arguably less land mass with shorter average frontages) involved by my count about 180,000 Allies and 80,000 Japanese.  Obviously, there are systematic problems here that will hopefully be addressed in Patch 02.

[Mike Solli]

T, any chance of having a stacking limit in all hex types?

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

T, any chance of having a stacking limit in all hex types?

While I like the idea of that, the more I think about it, it seems like that would be exceedingly complicated. First off, every terrain type would have to have a different value. Then you would realistically need to figure in things like unit Operational Mode status, leader abilities, how much of each hex is actually useable land (as opposed to water or sheer topography), etc., etc.

[Shark7]

Seems to me...

Those complaining about having massive numbers of troops wiped out by huge stacks of artillery are possibly putting huge stacks in defense as well. After all, how are you still holding against that huge stack if you don't have a huge stack of your own.

Basically big defending stack has a lot of troops in a small area, and the more troops you have in any given area, the more effective an artillery barrage will be.

The problem may be more of a stacking issue than an artillery issue TBH.

[Anthropoid]

There were 120,919 alllied guys in that same hex with those 277,168 Japanese guys for a grand total of 398,087.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

There were 120,919 alllied guys in that same hex with those 277,168 Japanese guys for a grand total of 398,087.

That does answer the question then, that is a bunch of troops located in one hex...they're packed in like sardines.

[vaned74]

I guess another point on stacking would be that 120,000 allies in 46 miles is actually not a very high troop density for a static front - <3,000 men per mile versus 6,000 men per mile for the attacker.

These types of concentrations were by no means uncommon in world war 2 (and certainly not in world war 1).&nbsp; For example, Anzio - the allied front in february was less than 20 miles across - and no more than about 10 miles deep; in it were packed about 75,000 Allied troops opposed by almost 100,000 German troops within about 15 miles of the front.&nbsp; In other words, on an area basis about 1/4 of the space of the 46 mile wide hex in question.

One should also assume that the 46 mile frontage is likely more than that as there will be various bulges and nooks in the lines that increase frontage.&nbsp; Of course, the reverse could also be true and one could assume the attackers have only minimally penetrated the hex.

Stacking alone is not the only issue.&nbsp; It'll be very interesting to see how the changes in patch 2 affect the bombardment/land combat model.

[Anthropoid]

http://www.math-prof.com/areavolume/hexagon.aspx
&nbsp;
Hexagon 46 miles across:
&nbsp;
Area of hexagon = 5,497.53 square miles
&nbsp;
With 398,087 soldiers that works out to&nbsp;72.412 soldiers per square miles, which does not intuitively seem like "sardine can" density to me . . . will have to look at urban pop densities&nbsp; . . .

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Terminus
To the point of madness. We have looked at this artillery stuff, but as long as some players insist on making monster stacks like this, the whining about "absurd results" sounds rather hollow.

Problem "Termi" is that far too many players equate "reality" with "whatever the rules will permit". That's the lesson of competitive game play..., use your assets to the max allowed or get beat. So your observation may be correct..., but it doesn't really help the game.

If you don't want players making "absurd stacks", the game needs to provide some effective penalty for doing so. Maybe a "density bonus" to the enemy's fire. Or more realistic supply problems and restrictions. Both Chinese and Japanese army's "lived off the land" to a great extent..., and as Wellington observed about the Penninsula, "Large armies starve, and small armies get beat".

Hopefully the next patch will at least control Artillery Bombardments by recognizing that the ammunition/supply expenditures currently in the game are "absurdly small". One modestly sized artillery tube (105mm) firing at a sustainable rate for 8 hours can expend 56 tons of ammunition. For a couple of hundred, that's 11,200 tons of supply every turn they "bombard"---just for the artillery ammo.