aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned.

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned.

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: jrlans

Honestly Az, I wouldnt disband the Banshee I'd pay the PP piper to keep them in play as long as they are there and there is enough A/C they pose a viable threat to even CAs. This means that you can effectivly maul an invasion (if you can get the escorts to cover them) within range.  It will force your opponent to try to close down airfields and will probably open up the waves.

How many PP per squadron per turn will that cost?
User avatar
jrlans
Posts: 180
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 10:58 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned.

Post by jrlans »

Im not exactly sure but I seem to remember in my games that i could keep a couple of squadrons that were set to withdraw in service and the PP draw basicaly evened out my gain. In otherwrods my PP were stagnant.  The real PP killer right now is ship withdrawl.
wpurdom
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Decatur, GA, USA

RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned.

Post by wpurdom »

Whether paying the PP cost makes any sense depends on the losses you take and your pool of Banshees. I am expecting that when your enemy comes into the vicinity of Java you'll have enough productive use for the Banshees that you'll lose enough planes that either your frontline or replacement Banshee squadrons will be way understrength. If you rush your reinforcement squadrons forward, they'll get there before you pay PP's on the old squadron, but it may require advanced planning.

I remember in my AI game, one 13 plane reinforcement squadron came on map with 2 planes. I disbanded a nine plane squadron into it. If you have one full or nearly full squadron and one with only 2-4 planes, no reason to pay PP's to keep both is all I'm saying. A couple reserve aircraft in a full squadron is no loss. Same thing for the P-40's.
wpurdom
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Decatur, GA, USA

RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned.

Post by wpurdom »

Let me apologize in advance, since I'm almost sure I'm about to try to teach Grandma to such eggs.

1. Have you picked out your final redoubt hex or hexes on Java to fortify. Experience on other AARs suggest that the mountainous bases at Malang and in the north are by far the best holdout hexes for inferior forces. Are you going to fortify one holdout base or one at each end of the island.

2. Are you productively using your transports and patrols to bring in restricted Dutch troops that aren't useful where they are? Especially base forces (e.g. at Den Passar, if you don't expect ot use it.

3. Are you going to write off British units or save a cadre? A lot of folks would say that cadres of British combat units (as opposed to bases and air HQs can't be rebuilt productively. Indians, quite another story.
aztez
Posts: 4031
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:32 am
Location: Finland

RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned.

Post by aztez »

jrlans: The Soerabaja and Batavia tour would be for scuba diving holidays! [:D]

Yeah, nothing gamey on setting such local mine sweeping TF's.

We actually had quite an fireworks at Batavia and kind of good/bad result there. I will post more about it tonight.

witpqs: I don't actually remember but as jrlans said it kind of evens out. I will check on this later today. Now at work.

In overall that "call" will be made when this is actually imminent.

wpurdom: A bunch of questions and here my views.

1) Yes. We will actually fight it out at Batavia. There two reasons and those are terrain + forts and the prep points. Those outweight other hexes.
Also we will fight at Soerabaja but the main forces are at Batavia.

2) Done already. Few units are waiting for the transports since the KB pulled the timetable a bit back.

3) As said I'am not big fan of cadres. We are not using this with Dave either and same goes here. Actually need to confirm this with katsuragi.

A few units we can "save" but I strongly feel that +95% not.

The usage of PP's really depends on situation at hand. That is always an judgement call.

We shall what happens. I don't mind those planes from the pools since now it is all about delaying and max. hurting him.

The game gives a lot of options. I have had a pleasure to clash againts Dave and discuss with quite a few experienced forum members. That adds up and this game is going to be tough from the start.
User avatar
String
Posts: 2661
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 7:56 pm
Location: Estonia

RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned.

Post by String »

[Reply to Message]

I hope you won't attrit your airforce vs. KB this early.
Surface combat TF fanboy
aztez
Posts: 4031
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:32 am
Location: Finland

RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned.

Post by aztez »

String: I did not fly out any navalstrikes. They are just waste of bombers this early on the game.

However I did CAP Batavia heavily and combined that with AA guns.

I will post the results later on tonigh but it seemed kind of 1:1 losses vs his elite pilots.

Quite a few Kate's and Val's were downed. He did sunk some ABDA cruisers and transports in return. Those had mmostly unloaded though.

I have better fighters arriving at Cape Town in +20 days from WC.
User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 12736
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned.

Post by Sardaukar »

Saving cadres can be quite detrimental in AE, especially for Brits and even Australians. Filling depleted unit can really hurt your replacement pools, leaving many important units understrength.
 
On the other hand, one can save cadre and disband it in "national base" into replacement pool to top up other units. Not sure if that'd be worth it though, unless fragment was major chunk of unit.
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned.

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: jrlans

Honestly Az, I wouldnt disband the Banshee I'd pay the PP piper to keep them in play as long as they are there and there is enough A/C they pose a viable threat to even CAs. This means that you can effectivly maul an invasion (if you can get the escorts to cover them) within range.  It will force your opponent to try to close down airfields and will probably open up the waves.

How many PP per squadron per turn will that cost?


Well, I am in August 1942 and have virtually no PP in my pool. So, I can't recommend doing things that waste PPs. A single CL costs 15 PP per day to keep, a British carrier about 65. You need to move infantry from the West Coast pronto. Save those PPs.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
wpurdom
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Decatur, GA, USA

RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned.

Post by wpurdom »

Yes. We will actually fight it out at Batavia. There two reasons and those are terrain + forts and the prep points. Those outweight other hexes.
Also we will fight at Soerabaja but the main forces are at Batavia.


Both cities have mountainous bases right next to them. Soerabaja doesn't seem to have any terrain advantages and isn't Batavia just light urban? With respect to Batavia, IJA frequently lands at Merak and comes straight down. If you can spare some engineers to fortify the mountain base some (even level 2) and he doesn't take it first, your Batavia garrison might still be of some use after it gets kicked out of town. Even more so in Soerabaja. If he only brings enough to kick you out of Soerabaja, it wouldn't be enough to kick you out of the mountain base.

On PP points - PP points for withdrawal and retention seem to be the same regardless of the number of planes/pilots left.
wpurdom
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Decatur, GA, USA

RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned.

Post by wpurdom »

The early problems with US Aerial torpedoes
The early models were handicapped by the need to drop them low and slow - 50 feet (15 m) and 110 knots - which made the torpedo planes carrying them more vulnerable to attack. The torpedoes themselves were found to be prone to defects. In mid-1943, an analysis of 105 torpedoes dropped at speeds in excess of 150 knots found that 36 percent ran cold (did not start), 20 percent sank, 20 percent had poor deflection performance, 18 percent gave unsatisfactory depth performance, 2 percent ran on the surface and only 31 percent gave a satisfactory run. The total exceeds 100 percent as many torpedoes had more than one defect.

These problems were greatly reduced by the latter years of the war. Torpedoes had fin stabilizers, nose drag rings and tail shroud rings added, all of which worked to slow the torpedo after it was dropped so that it struck the water nose-first and at an acceptable speed. These improved the drop characteristics such that the recommended aircraft maximum launch parameters were increased to a height of 2,400 feet (730 m) and a speed of 410 knots.

The addition of the nose drag ring improved aerodynamic performance by stabilizing the torpedo in flight and reduced air speed by about 40 percent. It also acted as a shock absorber when the torpedo struck the water. The tail shroud ring improved the water run by reducing hooks and broaches and by eliminating much of the water roll which had characterized the earlier Mark 13s. Hot, straight and normal runs now approached 100 percent. To speed availability of the much improved torpedo, the Bureau of Ordnance had tail assemblies built with the shroud ring attached and then shipped these to the fleet for upgrading the existing inventory. By the fall of 1944, the modified torpedo was in general use by the front-line carrier units which were enthusiastic in their praise. On one occasion in early 1945, six torpedoes were dropped from altitudes between 5,000 and 7,000 feet (1,500 to 2,100 m). Five out of the six were observed to make their runs hot, straight and normal. By the end of the war, the USN considered the Mark 13 to be the best aircraft torpedo produced by any nation and it remained in service until 1950.


http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_WWII.htm

Given the crappy torpedo, the Catalina is probably as good a delievery vehicle as other planes, especially the Devastator. I've been told that the optimal release speed (reliability unknown) was actually closer to 80 MPH and was below the stall speed of a Devastator and my supposition is that the stall speed of a Catalina is less than that of a Devastator, though others more knowledgeable may correct me.

The advantage of Japanese torpedoes
A problem that plagues all aircraft torpedoes is stability on water entry. The U.S. never fully got the hang of it and experienced problems well into 1944. The major problem is spinning on entry. This causes the torpedo to "Fish Hook'' or turn sharply as the tall fins enter time water.

The Japanese approached the problem on two fronts. First they tested two types of detachable tail frames. The "box' and "X", see diagrams(click to see diagrams), were both used during WWII. While the Box was the most effective, it was impractical for confined bomb bays. Box units were used for under-fuselage and wing mounts....

Secondly, to futher combat "Fish Hooking" two small anti-spin flippers were first installed on Type 91, Mod 2 units, 1942, and all subsequent models. The pair of flippers were gyro controlled and located just forward of the tail fins. The Flippers in turn had detachable wooden fins of bath small and large designs. Small units were used more often. Both tail frames and "Flipper Slippers" slipped on and broke away on water entry.

Another problem was the drop envelope, how fast, how high, etc. The ideal condition with mast early units was at 180Kts and 350 feet with a 170 to 200 bow angle at 1000m. With, I might add, Lord knows haw many anti-aircraft guns blasting away at you. Rather unsettling thought, isn't it? An improper drop would cause the torpedo to dive to the bottom or porpoise and snap in half. A 4mm latex rubber sheath, extending back 24" from the nose aided in cushioning water impact shock. The sheath would shatter on impact.

IJNAF and IJAAF Aircraft Ordinance
Part I Aircraft Torpedoes
by Bryan Wilburn
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned.

Post by witpqs »

As far as 'places to resist' go, the mountain hexes are fine. Soerabaja has oil, Batavia has industry. If you abandon those two hexes the IJA can just shut down your airfield (so you can't bomb oil centers) and turn your last redoubt into a southern PI. The only motive then to defeat your last redoubt is to free up IJA forces for redeployment.

This might be a good strategy but you should be clear that is OK with you in case the IJ player chooses to do it.
aztez
Posts: 4031
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:32 am
Location: Finland

RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned.

Post by aztez »

Cheers guys! Nice reading and discussions ongoing here. It is very late back here in Finland and had an awful week at work. Feeling kind of "out of energy" mode so I will respond to any PM's tomorrow when my brain is working correctly. (hopefully) Appreciated these for sure though.

Sardaukar: That is so true. I never been a big fan of cadres in this game series.

That just seems a bit unrealistic and gamey. Only have done this few times and somehow I don't see myself changing this "attitude".

crsutton: I really cannot argue againts that statement. My other PBEM (which is not to be mentioned in detail) a bit further and you need to choose wisely how to spend those points.

The Banshee situation will be decieded in the "last minute". A way too early to see what the strategic situation here is.

wpurdom: Yup, the Batavia has light urban same as Manila. The thing about Batavia though is that it is easily approached via two fronts. One Merak and also from central Batavia.

That brings the problem that thus we would need to split up our infantry stacks etc. Which really is not an good idea by any means. This all comes down to the amount of AV we can spare into this "fortress".

The mountain "strategy" is very valid point to any allied players starting an AE campaign. Terrain, terrain and even more terrains. Good tip! (Very valuable in China indeed too)

PP penalty is static per unit as you state.

Nice information WW2 torpedoes. Just very tired tonight after an work day to "forget". I like history so will digest those tomorrow when feeling a bit "fresh". I have my daughters with me this weekend so it will be evening though.

Btw, PBY's are solid againts lone or poorly escorted merchants. I think they have hit 4 merchants in past two turns.

witpqs: Basically what you are saying is that to keep industrial hexes occupied? I'am not going into strategic bombings early on. I know I could but I want my PBEM partner to enjoy the game too. No sense of inflicting extra industrial damage at DEI early on. Another areas are diffrent story though.

Actually could already bomb his oilfields around Borneo but have chosen not to do so. We do want inflict maxium amount of damage via sabotage though.
aztez
Posts: 4031
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:32 am
Location: Finland

RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned.

Post by aztez »

Java (january 6th - 7th 1942)


The "forecast" of bombs dropping at Batavia did happen. That was an mixed fortunes and I think we did more than ok. My opponent commented that he forgot change the "ranges" for his squadrons and this was not planned though.

The raids detailed below...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Batavia at 49,98

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 45 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 29
B5N2 Kate x 86
D3A1 Val x 35



Allied aircraft
Buffalo I x 38
B-339D x 37
75A-7 Hawk x 10


Japanese aircraft losses
B5N2 Kate: 14 destroyed, 22 damaged
D3A1 Val: 5 destroyed, 4 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Buffalo I: 1 destroyed
B-339D: 7 destroyed
75A-7 Hawk: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
xAK Elysia, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AMc Lawoe, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AMc Salak, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Barker
CL Tromp
CL De Ruyter
DD Witte de With
xAK Clan Mactavish, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
xAK Baron Cawdor, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AMc MMS A, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
CL Glasgow
DD Van Ghent
DD Paul Jones
DD Parrott
xAK Halizones, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Oosthaven at 48,96

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 29 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 8
B5N2 Kate x 12



Allied aircraft
Buffalo I x 2


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Buffalo I: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
xAK Lowana
xAK La Cordillera
xAK Empire Hamble, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage


Allied ground losses:
Guns lost 6 (5 destroyed, 1 disabled)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Batavia at 49,98

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 45 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 35
B5N2 Kate x 34
D3A1 Val x 71



Allied aircraft
Buffalo I x 34
B-339D x 18
75A-7 Hawk x 6


Japanese aircraft losses
B5N2 Kate: 5 destroyed, 12 damaged
D3A1 Val: 5 destroyed, 5 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Buffalo I: 3 destroyed
B-339D: 3 destroyed

Allied Ships
DD Witte de With
xAK Halizones, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
CL De Ruyter
DD Van Ghent
DD Bulmer
CL Tromp, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
CL Glasgow, Bomb hits 5, heavy fires
xAK Clan Mactavish, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Barker
xAK Baron Cawdor, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Piet Hein

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Batavia at 49,98

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 39
B5N2 Kate x 24
D3A1 Val x 57



Allied aircraft
Buffalo I x 26
B-339D x 11
75A-7 Hawk x 7


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed
B5N2 Kate: 2 destroyed, 3 damaged
D3A1 Val: 1 destroyed, 6 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Buffalo I: 2 destroyed
B-339D: 2 destroyed

Allied Ships
DD Bulmer, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Witte de With, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
CL De Ruyter, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Barker, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Paul Jones, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Parrott


That is how the turn played out. The ABDA fleet got hit hard but in exchange we got quite a few of his "elite" pilots. I know the AE training system
produces way too many "aces" in current system but not too bad actually.

It also seems that he is moving towards Bandejermasin. There is lvl 3 airfield there so no suprise with this allied signit information.

Image
Attachments
kb2.jpg
kb2.jpg (397.74 KiB) Viewed 386 times
aztez
Posts: 4031
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:32 am
Location: Finland

RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned.

Post by aztez »

An turns air losses reported by intelligence screen...

Image
Attachments
losses1.jpg
losses1.jpg (204.47 KiB) Viewed 386 times
aztez
Posts: 4031
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:32 am
Location: Finland

RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned.

Post by aztez »

Luzon (january 6th - 7th 1942)


The battle of Clark Field begins on december 6th 1942. Fist attempt to capture the base was pushed away.

The bad news is that his engineers knocked down a fort level here even with bad odds.

He has also send in large amount of bombers here and our AA guns are doing an ok job. Many of these bombers are damaged.

Overall in philippines he has now almost seized the territories at Mindanao and Samar.

The initial blows at Clark Field below...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Clark Field (79,76)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 48874 troops, 459 guns, 571 vehicles, Assault Value = 1740

Defending force 46188 troops, 777 guns, 519 vehicles, Assault Value = 1890

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 2

Japanese adjusted assault: 636

Allied adjusted defense: 1888

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

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

Japanese ground losses:
2712 casualties reported
Squads: 6 destroyed, 181 disabled
Non Combat: 15 destroyed, 166 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 21 disabled
Vehicles lost 79 (4 destroyed, 75 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
1166 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 157 disabled
Non Combat: 14 destroyed, 92 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 10 disabled
Vehicles lost 34 (3 destroyed, 31 disabled)

Image
Attachments
luzon.jpg
luzon.jpg (271.67 KiB) Viewed 383 times
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned.

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: aztez

witpqs: Basically what you are saying is that to keep industrial hexes occupied? I'am not going into strategic bombings early on. I know I could but I want my PBEM partner to enjoy the game too. No sense of inflicting extra industrial damage at DEI early on. Another areas are diffrent story though.

Actually could already bomb his oilfields around Borneo but have chosen not to do so. We do want inflict maxium amount of damage via sabotage though.

Well, I guess the best way to say it is consider what you will possibly accomplish with each plan. If you stay in the mountains and the IJA chews itself up on you that is a benefit. But if they close your airfield and turn the base into a POW camp - not so good! In the second case you might do more good by getting beaten much more quickly (in Batavia and Soerabaja) if it denies the industry/oil to him for a week longer (whereas if you pull everything into the mountains your oil/industry centers will fall very quickly).

BTW, in spite of months of training my Dutch air force achieved almost nothing. [:(]
User avatar
jrlans
Posts: 180
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 10:58 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned.

Post by jrlans »

ORIGINAL: witpqs


BTW, in spite of months of training my Dutch air force achieved almost nothing. [:(]


Yah I have had the same problem thats why I would recomend geting US fighters there if you can its the only way you have any chance of air pairty.

As for defence if I were playing the Japs and you didnt defend one of the Java cities i would keep a couple of squadrons back for traning of land bombing keep your AF closed and just enough force to prevent you from going anywhere and move on. In the next couple of days you will probably get a sence of how your opponent likes to deal with large land stacks (ie: does he let bataan rot)
aztez
Posts: 4031
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:32 am
Location: Finland

RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned.

Post by aztez »

witpqs: That is an good summary. There are always gains and losses to be weighted in.

I'am building up forts on in couple of mountaneous terrains. It is good to keep and backup plans available.

The main idea is to slow him down and sabotage precious industrial centers.

Hmmm, you were training them purely on naval missions I gather? I'am using mixed training for squadrons.

jrlans: The first set of fighters should arrive at Cape Town in two weeks time. Get them loaded and off to the frontlines they go...

That was an good prediction when you stated about the "next few days". He is coming forward and is bypassing some important bases.
aztez
Posts: 4031
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:32 am
Location: Finland

RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned.

Post by aztez »

China (january 8th - 9th 1942)


An quick pick how things are in this huge country.

The main thing you can notice that I'am not going to fight on the plains or any other areas which doesn't add any advantages to us.

Supply levels are ok and important bases are gaining forts.

There are some guerilla units in constant movement but the main forces are redeploying nicely.

So far we have knocked/routed 2 IJA brigades and couple of smaller units. That is a good for sure.

Image
Attachments
china.jpg
china.jpg (538.23 KiB) Viewed 383 times
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”