Where the eastern wind is blowing... AAR against Canoerebel

[Hortlund]

The HI around Calcutta.

[Historiker]

Calcutta-Darjeeling?
What do you think, how long can you keep the HI intact?

I ask because I thought about such an operation myself. But my conclusion was, that unless I manage to destroy significant forces - which mostly requires encirclement - it isn't worth the effort.
At least that was my descision... [;)]

[Hortlund]

Just owning (and producing) the HI makes it worth the effort, so Im not sure why you came to that conclusion?

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Just owning (and producing) the HI makes it worth the effort...

+1

And taking Calcutta is likely to net you some decent fuel as well.

[KenchiSulla]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Just owning (and producing) the HI makes it worth the effort, so Im not sure why you came to that conclusion?

That little bit of HI really doesn't matter anything going into 1945 so if you can do it without much risk, go for it.. But don't do it for the HI and fuel..

[Historiker]

How long will this area produce HI, when you play a competent player and don't have HRs restrictions? I thought about it in my may/42 game, so it would've happened in a time when the british reinforcements start to flow...

But that may be a special case. I will still watch how it'll turn out in your game

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder
That little bit of HI really doesn't matter anything going into 1945 so if you can do it without much risk, go for it.. But don't do it for the HI and fuel..

Using that standard not much really matters at all going into 1945 though... A couple of hundred HI more producing wihtout using fuel/resources destined for the HI is no small matter in my opinion. The longer the better of cource.

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

How long will this area produce HI, when you play a competent player and don't have HRs restrictions? I thought about it in mg may/42 game, so it would've happened in a time when the british reinforcements start to flow...

But that may be a special case. I will still watch how it'll turn out in your game

Well into 43 I think. At least six months of production at the least. A "normal" allied player will get really nervous if an invasion of India happens, and the first focus will probably be to protect Karachi, Bombay, etc. I dont think many will think "oh, this is just a local attack around Calcutta, I will rail all my units there".

[desicat]

At this point in the game you have strong forces in and around Alaska, weak probing forces in Australia, and you are now contemplating striking India. The KB will be required for the Indian invasion but it will also need to spend some time replenishing and upgrading after a period of heavy operations.

Singapore is still in enemy hands and a lot of interior clean-up is still required. You are just getting around to setting the table in China. Are you over extending?

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

ORIGINAL: Historiker

How long will this area produce HI, when you play a competent player and don't have HRs restrictions? I thought about it in mg may/42 game, so it would've happened in a time when the british reinforcements start to flow...

But that may be a special case. I will still watch how it'll turn out in your game

Well into 43 I think. At least six months of production at the least. A "normal" allied player will get really nervous if an invasion of India happens, and the first focus will probably be to protect Karachi, Bombay, etc. I dont think many will think "oh, this is just a local attack around Calcutta, I will rail all my units there".

good point!

[desicat]

I think landing at Chittagong is a good idea, I'm just curious to see where you plan on drawing the line for the defensive perimeter.

[Olorin]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

This is just a fake post, in case Canoe spots the thread subject. I want him to think there is something huge in the making, but I dont want to talk about it or drop hints in emails. Thats just too obvious. Sigint, recon reports and other means are much better to create the impression something big is going on.

Great name for an operation [:D] I suspect it has something to do with the lovely lady in your avatar.

Regarding a landing in Chittagong, I've pulled it off in October '42 against an allied player that had a large army in forward deployment, thus trapping some 2500 allied AV in the jungle. I could have marched to Calcutta and claimed its industry but I didn't.
Since, in this game it's only early '42, such a landing has a good chance to succeed, imho.
The only problem I can see is Port Blair remaining in allied hands. You must be in control of the Andaman Sea in order to feed the Indian industry with fuel with relative safety.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: desicat

I think landing at Chittagong is a good idea, I'm just curious to see where you plan on drawing the line for the defensive perimeter.

I'm thinking the strategy is that no defensive line is needed if the IJ achieves an auto-victory [8D]

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

ORIGINAL: desicat

I think landing at Chittagong is a good idea, I'm just curious to see where you plan on drawing the line for the defensive perimeter.

I'm thinking the strategy is that no defensive line is needed if the IJ achieves an auto-victory [8D]

auto-victory stinks and is only for playing the AI [;)]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: desicat

Having actually sailed through the straits on a Carrier they are not very wide and there is little to no room for maneuver in the navigable channels.

The fact that the British guns were not targeting the strait was not a known fact at the time and not even the craziest Admiral would chance running a Battle Group through that gauntlet with the airfields in and around Singapore in enemy hands and operational.

The harbor defense guns could possibly have been discarded but any infantry artillery would have been able to be positioned to pound passing ships. Old fashioned fire ships or channel blockers COULD have been employed to create serious havoc.

Just because something was possible with the perfect knowledge of hindsight doesn't make it something that could be casually done without considering the risk and the unknowns in the present (game time).

Not trying to hijack, so last one on this for me. I just haven't ever seen a discussion of the sailing-past-Singers issue in the forum before and it tweaked my interest.

I have not consulted nav charts of the passage, but atlas maps seem to show a strait about 7-8 miles wide for most of its length. I don't know how wide the dredged channel would have been in 1941, pre-supertanker, but less.

As I thought about the FC issue I also thought about a tactical topic which I've never seen discussed re WITP or AE at all, and that is the absence of smoke as a screen in the game engine. DDs had smoke generators as far back as WWI or earlier, and smoke was used quite a bit in the PTO, at least as late as Leyte Gulf (Taffy 3 action.) Also, in sum, the 15in batteries constituted less than one BB's-worth of tubes, and there were widely separated in known, fixed positions. Smoke rounds and/or harrassment fire from escorts could have helped a passage. And the 6in and any army artillery which could be brought up would not trouble BBs or CAs. Mobile arty would have been fully exposed to counter-fire from the ships as well. At flank a passing force would have been in range for about 90 minutes, give or take. I don't know the rate of fire for the 15in batteries, or the amount of ready ammo, but five tubes would have been an acceptable risk IMO. Admirals in many wars, from the ACW to the RN in the Napoleonic era, challenged shore batteries when necessary. It could be done.

Of course, the IJN didn't need to do it, so it wasn't done. But in game terms I think an HR forbidding it being tried is unwise. As I believe GJ said, the routing rolls sometimes blunder ships into Singer's hex even when told not to; I've had that happen with subs I've sent past which fell to mines. And the air threat is also a factor. But a Japanese player willing to take the risk, and to be cut off from fuel as he goes north up the Burmese coast, ought to be allowed to try. And the narrow strait rules are there to let him. Or, in this case, aren't there.

[desicat]

You are correct that the BB's and the CA's would have little to fear from shore based artillery but the CV's would be the main targets and with that in mind the risk would be too high (IMHO).

High speed runs of navigable channels are tricky things to pull off safely. If you were in charge of a Torpedo Squadron could you imagine anything better than your targets transiting in a channel passage with limited maneuvering room?

A few sacrificial British DD's (under the cover of smoke screens?) with air support would really slow the transit down and possibly force passing ships out of the charted navigation channels as they are forced to dodge DD torpedo attacks.

Could the Japanese force their way through? Sure. If the Scharnhorst an the Prince Eugen could survive the Channel Dash anything is possible. The question to ask is; Is the risk worth the reward? For the German's the Channel Dash was worth the risk, would the loss or damage to IJN CV's trying to force the strait (when other options were available) meet the same criteria?

As far as the house rule goes I could see any combat ships other than the CV's making the run. With the British airfields unsuppressed I probably would not try it myself.

"I have not consulted nav charts of the passage, but atlas maps seem to show a strait about 7-8 miles wide for most of its length. I don't know how wide the dredged channel would have been in 1941, pre-supertanker, but less."

From Wiki: At Phillips Channel close to the south of Singapore, the Strait of Malacca narrows to 2.8 km (1.5 nautical miles) wide, creating one of the world's most significant traffic choke points.[6]

[Q-Ball]

I don't think the Buona Vista Battery guns could actually reach the Malayan shore. What I don't know is how deep the channel is over there, and how close a large ship could actually SAIL toward shore.

Here is an article about that particular battery, which is now a housing development:

http://www.fortsiloso.com/batteries/bv/bv.htm

On Google Maps, if you look for "Ulu Pandan Road Singapore", it will take you right to the location

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: desicat

Having actually sailed through the straits on a Carrier they are not very wide and there is little to no room for maneuver in the navigable channels.

The fact that the British guns were not targeting the strait was not a known fact at the time and not even the craziest Admiral would chance running a Battle Group through that gauntlet with the airfields in and around Singapore in enemy hands and operational.

The harbor defense guns could possibly have been discarded but any infantry artillery would have been able to be positioned to pound passing ships. Old fashioned fire ships or channel blockers COULD have been employed to create serious havoc.

Just because something was possible with the perfect knowledge of hindsight doesn't make it something that could be casually done without considering the risk and the unknowns in the present (game time).

Not trying to hijack, so last one on this for me. I just haven't ever seen a discussion of the sailing-past-Singers issue in the forum before and it tweaked my interest.

I have not consulted nav charts of the passage, but atlas maps seem to show a strait about 7-8 miles wide for most of its length. I don't know how wide the dredged channel would have been in 1941, pre-supertanker, but less.

As I thought about the FC issue I also thought about a tactical topic which I've never seen discussed re WITP or AE at all, and that is the absence of smoke as a screen in the game engine. DDs had smoke generators as far back as WWI or earlier, and smoke was used quite a bit in the PTO, at least as late as Leyte Gulf (Taffy 3 action.) Also, in sum, the 15in batteries constituted less than one BB's-worth of tubes, and there were widely separated in known, fixed positions. Smoke rounds and/or harrassment fire from escorts could have helped a passage. And the 6in and any army artillery which could be brought up would not trouble BBs or CAs. Mobile arty would have been fully exposed to counter-fire from the ships as well. At flank a passing force would have been in range for about 90 minutes, give or take. I don't know the rate of fire for the 15in batteries, or the amount of ready ammo, but five tubes would have been an acceptable risk IMO. Admirals in many wars, from the ACW to the RN in the Napoleonic era, challenged shore batteries when necessary. It could be done.

Of course, the IJN didn't need to do it, so it wasn't done. But in game terms I think an HR forbidding it being tried is unwise. As I believe GJ said, the routing rolls sometimes blunder ships into Singer's hex even when told not to; I've had that happen with subs I've sent past which fell to mines. And the air threat is also a factor. But a Japanese player willing to take the risk, and to be cut off from fuel as he goes north up the Burmese coast, ought to be allowed to try. And the narrow strait rules are there to let him. Or, in this case, aren't there.

If they are able to fire into the straight, the risk is too high. A single gun in a fixed position usually can aim more easy than a moving target, right? 6in are more than enough to seriously damage a CA, and the Japanese knew very well that damage above the armour can be sufficiant to sink any ship by damage and fire - they did so themselves in 1895 and 1905.
Would you really risk ships in a small shipping channel that might even be mined while getting under fire from various guns between 6 and 15in? What gains justify such a gamble?

One 15in hit in the right spot against a possible well trained battery that can easy measure fireing distances by former training - no matter that is true or not, you have to anticipate it...

Well, good luck and let's hope you aren't an admiral for Carthago which crucifies you when you loose a battle...

[PaxMondo]

Spent a fair amount of time in Singers back when.  Shipping channel is crowded, narrow, and runs fairly close to Singers.  It is maintained.  From the top of Pearl Hill (I think that is what it is called, its the big hill just a bit behind Raffles.  5 minute run from Raffles) in Singers, on a clear day (rare), you can easily see the shipping moving.  Generally, haze limits your visibility to maybe 5 miles, prolly less.  So the channel is more than 5 miles off the coast of Singers, but less than 10.  At least, that is where it was in the 60/70/80's.  I would not expect them to have shifted it.

The cd guns pointed out towards the harbor and the channel, there is or at least used to be, several monuments where those were. My opinion, based purely on talking with people back there at that time, is that the guns may or may not have been able to close the channel. Prolly closer to may not. BUT, that was not information widely known at all. Instead Singers was widely believed in the day to be impregnable fortress. I beleive that the IJ thought they could not transit and have always played with that assumption even though the reality is that they may very well have been able to.

[witpqs]

Is the Eastern Wind still blowing?