37 mm AT Gun hits 1 - WTF ???
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
RE: 37 mm AT Gun hits 1 - WTF ???
I heard the story from my best friend's father, who was there. He was pinned down in a ditch at the edge of the airfield, and said 'that our gunners on the hillside were shooting at the Ju52's as they were landing'. He also said that 'they were hitting some of them', and he remembered that they burned really easily. I do have all the battalion histories for NZ Army, and one of them states that the guns were captured 75's, but doesn't say who they were captured from.
When you see the Southern Cross, For the first time
You understand now, Why you came this way
RE: 37 mm AT Gun hits 1 - WTF ???
This is not a "WTF" warranted thread. Although I am very suspicious as to the basis of the makeup of this "scenario" (see Chickenboy's post #16) and therefore the possible ramifications of equipment specifications, nor have we been provided with any meaningful data of what occurred at Loyang and therefore a comparison between the two locations is not possible and of no value to the OP, still there is enough provided to set the OP on the correct thinking path.
Before proceeding with the commentary there are a couple of things the OP should do himself.
(a) Do not rely just on reading the Combat Report. You must also view the combat animation to gain a fuller understanding of what factors are at play.
(b) Forget about this expectation that Loyang results can automatically be generated at Chungking. There are many significant differences between the two and the OP has yet to realise what those differences are, even though the differences are not hidden from a player.
Also before commentating on this particular incident, I strongly urge the OP to read this recent thread.
tm.asp?m=3251828&mpage=1&key=bombing%2Ceffect�
Chungking Result
1. No timeline has been provided. Nonetheless it is quite likely that Chungking has level 6 forts whereas Loyang probably had only level 1, perhaps level 2, forts. That is a huge difference and alone would suffice to explain the alleged differences in bombing results. But wait, there are other factors too at play.
2. The Chinese have very limited flak assets.
(a) Most infantry divisions have no organic flak, and the few that do have some are only equipped with flak limited to a ceiling of less than 4000 feet.
(b) Chinese Base Forces have a TOE which includes some limited medium AA guns which can fire up to 7500-9800 feet, and a few large AA guns which can reach 27k-28k feet. I said TOE, because in reality the large flak guns are not distributed to all the units in the field and with the supply problems in china, it is difficult to fill up depleted units.
(c) The only Chinese units equipped with a reasonable number of AA guns are the two Anti-Aircraft Regiments located at Chungking. These units have flak which can reach Japanese bombers flying up to 27k feet.
3. If you read the thread I hyperlinked above, you will see the importance and effect of degrading enemy bombing. Loyang almost certainly had no flak which could reach Japanese bombers flying at 6000 feet. Chungking instead has probably about 20 guns which can fire above 27k feet and even more guns which can hit planes flying in the delta 6-9k feet. Your Chungking Combat Report ("CR") shows about 5.7% of the attacking bombers were damaged by "flak" (you have not updated the game because flak losses are now recorded separately on CRs). For the China Theatre, that is a significant loss rate and impact on bomber degradation.
4. Having flak present is in itself of no value if there is insufficient supply. You place emphasis on having destroyed facilities and blockade at your bombing targets. Loyang has very limited supply generating capacity and would have only a 20 auto supply capacity which means that even if there was any flak present there, it would not have fired due to lack of shells. Chungking is quite different. Not only is it the Ruhr of Chinese industry, particularly when compared to Loyang, even with all its industrial facilities shut down it would still generate 400 supply automatically. That means that unless the entire Chinese army is trapped at Chungking, there should still be some supply available to provide shells for the AA guns.
5. In military terms it is almost always true that dissipation of effort is not only inefficient, but prone to generate poor results. You cannot complain about your bombing results regarding number of enemy casualties (which is the wrong metric anyway, see point 6 below) when you have assigned 30% of your bombers to "city attack". I very much suspect that at Loyang you had the bombers 100% on "ground attack"; certainly after the very limited industrial facilities there had been quickly destroyed.
6. Time after time I see players assessing their performance on the basis of enemy men "casualties". It was a poor metric in Vietnam; it is fairly meaningless in AE. It is the number of devices killed outright or disabled which counts (again look at the thread provided above). All that the casualty men number records is the combat load factor associated with the various devices which have been destroyed/disabled. It is not practically possible from that metric, to ascertain which devices are involved. Nor are all "similar" devices equal in their combat load factor. But the real reason why it is such a poor metric is that the main value of bombers on "ground attack" is not recorded on the CR at all. Disruption to combat defending units is extremely important, as is destruction of supply (but the latter is more efficiently handled by "airfield attack"), and that is all handled "under the hood".
7. In point (1) above I mentioned the great disparity between the two locations in terms of their fortification levels. Just as important, because it also accentuates the protection from bombing, is the great disparity of terrain. Loyang is clear terrain, Chungking is Light Urban. Look up the table on page 189 of the manual to see the impact of the different terrain. When combined with its fortification level, even without taking into account any bomber degradation suffered, you should expect that Chungking will suffer only about 25% of the "casualties" that a similar sized and weighted attack would inflict at Loyang.
8. Bearing in mind the preceding points, on what authority do you base the statement that inflicting "250/350 kills a day is simply not quick enough" (post #7). Firstly, what is the relevance of the time; do you have to rush to the supermarket before closing time to buy a litre of milk? Secondly, as I pointed out in the above thread, "ground attack" is the wrong tactic unless you are concurrently making infantry attacks. Consistent with the lack of relevant data provided, I very much doubt that you are launching infantry attacks. Furthermore, again on what authority do you believe that inflicting 1k daily losses will ensure an easy continental win. This is not Kosovo 1999. Airpower alone does not win battles, you need the army. Have a proper army attacking Chungking and you will get far better results than is possible with Japanese airpower.
Alfred
Before proceeding with the commentary there are a couple of things the OP should do himself.
(a) Do not rely just on reading the Combat Report. You must also view the combat animation to gain a fuller understanding of what factors are at play.
(b) Forget about this expectation that Loyang results can automatically be generated at Chungking. There are many significant differences between the two and the OP has yet to realise what those differences are, even though the differences are not hidden from a player.
Also before commentating on this particular incident, I strongly urge the OP to read this recent thread.
tm.asp?m=3251828&mpage=1&key=bombing%2Ceffect�
Chungking Result
1. No timeline has been provided. Nonetheless it is quite likely that Chungking has level 6 forts whereas Loyang probably had only level 1, perhaps level 2, forts. That is a huge difference and alone would suffice to explain the alleged differences in bombing results. But wait, there are other factors too at play.
2. The Chinese have very limited flak assets.
(a) Most infantry divisions have no organic flak, and the few that do have some are only equipped with flak limited to a ceiling of less than 4000 feet.
(b) Chinese Base Forces have a TOE which includes some limited medium AA guns which can fire up to 7500-9800 feet, and a few large AA guns which can reach 27k-28k feet. I said TOE, because in reality the large flak guns are not distributed to all the units in the field and with the supply problems in china, it is difficult to fill up depleted units.
(c) The only Chinese units equipped with a reasonable number of AA guns are the two Anti-Aircraft Regiments located at Chungking. These units have flak which can reach Japanese bombers flying up to 27k feet.
3. If you read the thread I hyperlinked above, you will see the importance and effect of degrading enemy bombing. Loyang almost certainly had no flak which could reach Japanese bombers flying at 6000 feet. Chungking instead has probably about 20 guns which can fire above 27k feet and even more guns which can hit planes flying in the delta 6-9k feet. Your Chungking Combat Report ("CR") shows about 5.7% of the attacking bombers were damaged by "flak" (you have not updated the game because flak losses are now recorded separately on CRs). For the China Theatre, that is a significant loss rate and impact on bomber degradation.
4. Having flak present is in itself of no value if there is insufficient supply. You place emphasis on having destroyed facilities and blockade at your bombing targets. Loyang has very limited supply generating capacity and would have only a 20 auto supply capacity which means that even if there was any flak present there, it would not have fired due to lack of shells. Chungking is quite different. Not only is it the Ruhr of Chinese industry, particularly when compared to Loyang, even with all its industrial facilities shut down it would still generate 400 supply automatically. That means that unless the entire Chinese army is trapped at Chungking, there should still be some supply available to provide shells for the AA guns.
5. In military terms it is almost always true that dissipation of effort is not only inefficient, but prone to generate poor results. You cannot complain about your bombing results regarding number of enemy casualties (which is the wrong metric anyway, see point 6 below) when you have assigned 30% of your bombers to "city attack". I very much suspect that at Loyang you had the bombers 100% on "ground attack"; certainly after the very limited industrial facilities there had been quickly destroyed.
6. Time after time I see players assessing their performance on the basis of enemy men "casualties". It was a poor metric in Vietnam; it is fairly meaningless in AE. It is the number of devices killed outright or disabled which counts (again look at the thread provided above). All that the casualty men number records is the combat load factor associated with the various devices which have been destroyed/disabled. It is not practically possible from that metric, to ascertain which devices are involved. Nor are all "similar" devices equal in their combat load factor. But the real reason why it is such a poor metric is that the main value of bombers on "ground attack" is not recorded on the CR at all. Disruption to combat defending units is extremely important, as is destruction of supply (but the latter is more efficiently handled by "airfield attack"), and that is all handled "under the hood".
7. In point (1) above I mentioned the great disparity between the two locations in terms of their fortification levels. Just as important, because it also accentuates the protection from bombing, is the great disparity of terrain. Loyang is clear terrain, Chungking is Light Urban. Look up the table on page 189 of the manual to see the impact of the different terrain. When combined with its fortification level, even without taking into account any bomber degradation suffered, you should expect that Chungking will suffer only about 25% of the "casualties" that a similar sized and weighted attack would inflict at Loyang.
8. Bearing in mind the preceding points, on what authority do you base the statement that inflicting "250/350 kills a day is simply not quick enough" (post #7). Firstly, what is the relevance of the time; do you have to rush to the supermarket before closing time to buy a litre of milk? Secondly, as I pointed out in the above thread, "ground attack" is the wrong tactic unless you are concurrently making infantry attacks. Consistent with the lack of relevant data provided, I very much doubt that you are launching infantry attacks. Furthermore, again on what authority do you believe that inflicting 1k daily losses will ensure an easy continental win. This is not Kosovo 1999. Airpower alone does not win battles, you need the army. Have a proper army attacking Chungking and you will get far better results than is possible with Japanese airpower.
Alfred
-
castor troy
- Posts: 14331
- Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
- Location: Austria
RE: 37 mm AT Gun hits 1 - WTF ???
ORIGINAL: joey
FOW?
more like a flaw than FOW
-
castor troy
- Posts: 14331
- Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
- Location: Austria
RE: 37 mm AT Gun hits 1 - WTF ???
ORIGINAL: wdolson
ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake
Anyone who hits a moving aircraft with a 37mm AT gun is going to want to brag about it.
The British hit some Ju-52s during the invasion of Crete with 25 pounders. The guns were up in the hills above the airfields and they were able to fire down on the Ju-52s as they flew past. The Ju-52s were flying very slow and it was a unique situation.
I think in this case the AT gun was hit by one of the bombers, but it got reported on the wrong line for some reason.
Bill
you sure they were hit when they were actually flying?
RE: 37 mm AT Gun hits 1 - WTF ???
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Just curious, JSG, but are you playing some sort of mod? The listing of Japanese aircraft damaged (i.e.," Ki-21-Ic x48; Ki-21-IIa x194; Ki-49-IIa x20") is not what I would expect from stock, in that your listing contains no "Lilly" or "Sonia" or other codename descriptor.
Don't know if this has something to do with your unusual / odd 37mm AT gun hit, but just a thought.
I renamed the aircraft because I dislike reading American call signs all the time while playing as a Japanese.
There were no substantial changes that could explain this, neither in bomber armament nor in ground units.
I hadn't this message at other times either, so I assume it was probably caused by a corrupted byte.
RE: 37 mm AT Gun hits 1 - WTF ???
ORIGINAL: Alfred
(...)
That means that unless the entire Chinese army is trapped at Chungking, there should still be some supply available to provide shells for the AA guns.
(...)
8. Bearing in mind the preceding points, on what authority do you base the statement that inflicting "250/350 kills a day is simply not quick enough" (post #7). Firstly, what is the relevance of the time; do you have to rush to the supermarket before closing time to buy a litre of milk? Secondly, as I pointed out in the above thread, "ground attack" is the wrong tactic unless you are concurrently making infantry attacks. Consistent with the lack of relevant data provided, I very much doubt that you are launching infantry attacks. Furthermore, again on what authority do you believe that inflicting 1k daily losses will ensure an easy continental win. This is not Kosovo 1999. Airpower alone does not win battles, you need the army. Have a proper army attacking Chungking and you will get far better results than is possible with Japanese airpower.
Alfred
There are more than 440 k Chinese trapped in Chungking. I hammer them with almost all army artillery units there are, about 400 medium bombers, attacked them with more than 7500 AV only to be reduced to 4400 AV next day without inflicting substantial damage - and all this while their supply situation is down to auto supply + about 50-70 LI.
Killing them while they're unable to recover from losses way my only plan to eliminate Chungking once and for all.
Brute force on the ground did not help.
Chungking before assault : after:
6/9 fort 5/9
7782 AV 7667
117443 infantry 118084
120682 other 121544
1231 guns 1249
They even grew stronger during the 24 hrs period while I lost the equivalent of two armies there!
I'm not going to beat them with even more troops, as I could at most mobilise 6 more divisions and reach about 9000 AV. About 80% of my tanks are already at Chungking, as are almost 100% of army field/siege artillery units.
The bombers were my big hope.
Now I suppose if the bombers don't work, I need to withdraw and lure them out, for battle against only part of the whole Chungking army at Chengtu. They lost 40k personnel during my initial river crossing to the west of Chungking and 10 k during a counterattack after my one big attack on Chungking, but have never displayed any thirst for battle afterwards (and I am down to 3 divisions + ARM + ART in the Chungking hex - they still don't attack any more).
-
HistoryGuy
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:04 pm
- Location: Woodbridge, VA
RE: 37 mm AT Gun hits 1 - WTF ???
Having stood on the New Zealand defensive positions overlooking Maleme airfield, I would entertain serious doubts that aircraft in flight were being hit. Its a LONG way off (surprisingly so) and howitzer shells travel fairly slowly. Vickers HMGs would seem to be the best weapon to use against the Germans at that range (1000 meters plus or so it seemed). I could see why the New Zealanders pulled off the hill that night because they did not realize how it commanded the airfield. It would have been very hard to see what was happening there.
RE: 37 mm AT Gun hits 1 - WTF ???
Selective facts again which do not disclose the full picture.
1. I think you are playing a human opponent. That can be a significant factor to take into account.
2. I assume this info
[center]Chungking before assault : after:
6/9 fort 5/9
7782 AV 7667
117443 infantry 118084
120682 other 121544
1231 guns 1249 [/center]
represents Chinese data. With no context provided it is meaningless, other than it shows forts were reduced which in itself is an important achievement. Sieges always take time but fort reduction is always a positive outcome worth incurring heavier losses than the enemy, and over a sustained period of time too.
3. You did not lose the equivalent of two armies at Chungking, however without providing the data (best done via screenshots) who knows exactly what really occurred. Most likely you merely suffered disablements. Japanese disablements usually recover much more quickly than chinese disablements which are hamstrung by lack of supply.
4. It doesn't appear that you have set up properly the investing force.
(a) artillery bombardment only attacks is not the way to capture a level 6 fortification. All that you have been accomplishing is to improve the experience levels of the enemy units.
(b) Japanese tanks do very well against the Chinese simply because they do not come up against any anti-tank weapons except when they invest Chungking. The only Chinese anti-tank weapons are found in Chungking where they expose the inherent weakness of Japanese tanks. You need infantry, not tanks to invest Chungking.
(c) Three Japanese infantry divisions to invest Chungking is just laughable. Even an additional 6 infantry divisions, whilst considerably improving the situation, is not enough to efficiently prosecute the attack. Trapping 440k Chinese at Chungking means that most of the rest of China is under your control and more than 6 additional Japanese divisions can be scrapped together. If you can't do it then you have seriously mismanaged your operations or had unrealistic assumptions from the start as to how to handle China.
5. Again the wrong metric is being used. How many times does it have to be said that AV is fairly meaningless; what matters is combat firepower. Here Japan has a distinct advantage, not just in the raw firepower of its devices compared to Chinese devices but in being able to bring it to bear effectively as your disruption, morale and leadership levels should be far superior.
6. Who said anything about more brute force being the key to cracking open Chungking. In my earlier post I said you needed a proper army attacking. reading between the lines, and really I shouldn't have to do so, it doesn't seem like you have a proper army present.
(a) are your units 100% prepped for Chungking?
(b) have you set up your HQs correctly to take full advantage of the possible combat and supply benefits?
(c) are you rotating your divisions into/out of the Verdun cauldron of continuous combat, this being one of the main reasons why you need infantry rather than tanks?
(d) have your land attacks been made hastily with unready units?
7. You are not conducting a properly co-ordinated combined arms operation. The hyperlink I gave before explained what should be done. In short you are badly misusing your air force.
(a) You say there is still 50-70 LI centres. As it has been your intention from the beginning to destroy the industrial infrastructure, you should not have used your air force on anything other than industry destruction. Nor have launched any land attacks until subjective had been accomplished.
(b) It was probably not the best to have launched any bombers at all on city attack. That many Chinese mouths quickly consume the available supplies plus with the rest of China in your hands, the necessary raw materials to feed the Chungking industry would be lacking. More importantly, for the reasons outlined in the other thread, your bombers should be conducting airfield attacks which can be a force multiplier to land attacks.
(c) A single big attack never, I repeat never, not even against 1942 Chinese units, suffices to capture a festung. It requires the equivalent of a creeping barrage of deliberate attacks with support from bombardment only capable units, and not shock attacks.
What you really should do is search the forum for the many threads which discuss how to conduct operations in China. That is really the issue here, not the unwarranted "WTF" opening comment.
Alfred
1. I think you are playing a human opponent. That can be a significant factor to take into account.
2. I assume this info
[center]Chungking before assault : after:
6/9 fort 5/9
7782 AV 7667
117443 infantry 118084
120682 other 121544
1231 guns 1249 [/center]
represents Chinese data. With no context provided it is meaningless, other than it shows forts were reduced which in itself is an important achievement. Sieges always take time but fort reduction is always a positive outcome worth incurring heavier losses than the enemy, and over a sustained period of time too.
3. You did not lose the equivalent of two armies at Chungking, however without providing the data (best done via screenshots) who knows exactly what really occurred. Most likely you merely suffered disablements. Japanese disablements usually recover much more quickly than chinese disablements which are hamstrung by lack of supply.
4. It doesn't appear that you have set up properly the investing force.
(a) artillery bombardment only attacks is not the way to capture a level 6 fortification. All that you have been accomplishing is to improve the experience levels of the enemy units.
(b) Japanese tanks do very well against the Chinese simply because they do not come up against any anti-tank weapons except when they invest Chungking. The only Chinese anti-tank weapons are found in Chungking where they expose the inherent weakness of Japanese tanks. You need infantry, not tanks to invest Chungking.
(c) Three Japanese infantry divisions to invest Chungking is just laughable. Even an additional 6 infantry divisions, whilst considerably improving the situation, is not enough to efficiently prosecute the attack. Trapping 440k Chinese at Chungking means that most of the rest of China is under your control and more than 6 additional Japanese divisions can be scrapped together. If you can't do it then you have seriously mismanaged your operations or had unrealistic assumptions from the start as to how to handle China.
5. Again the wrong metric is being used. How many times does it have to be said that AV is fairly meaningless; what matters is combat firepower. Here Japan has a distinct advantage, not just in the raw firepower of its devices compared to Chinese devices but in being able to bring it to bear effectively as your disruption, morale and leadership levels should be far superior.
6. Who said anything about more brute force being the key to cracking open Chungking. In my earlier post I said you needed a proper army attacking. reading between the lines, and really I shouldn't have to do so, it doesn't seem like you have a proper army present.
(a) are your units 100% prepped for Chungking?
(b) have you set up your HQs correctly to take full advantage of the possible combat and supply benefits?
(c) are you rotating your divisions into/out of the Verdun cauldron of continuous combat, this being one of the main reasons why you need infantry rather than tanks?
(d) have your land attacks been made hastily with unready units?
7. You are not conducting a properly co-ordinated combined arms operation. The hyperlink I gave before explained what should be done. In short you are badly misusing your air force.
(a) You say there is still 50-70 LI centres. As it has been your intention from the beginning to destroy the industrial infrastructure, you should not have used your air force on anything other than industry destruction. Nor have launched any land attacks until subjective had been accomplished.
(b) It was probably not the best to have launched any bombers at all on city attack. That many Chinese mouths quickly consume the available supplies plus with the rest of China in your hands, the necessary raw materials to feed the Chungking industry would be lacking. More importantly, for the reasons outlined in the other thread, your bombers should be conducting airfield attacks which can be a force multiplier to land attacks.
(c) A single big attack never, I repeat never, not even against 1942 Chinese units, suffices to capture a festung. It requires the equivalent of a creeping barrage of deliberate attacks with support from bombardment only capable units, and not shock attacks.
What you really should do is search the forum for the many threads which discuss how to conduct operations in China. That is really the issue here, not the unwarranted "WTF" opening comment.
Alfred
RE: 37 mm AT Gun hits 1 - WTF ???
Take the 25pdr out of the equation, they didnt exists.ORIGINAL: HistoryGuy
Having stood on the New Zealand defensive positions overlooking Maleme airfield, I would entertain serious doubts that aircraft in flight were being hit. Its a LONG way off (surprisingly so) and howitzer shells travel fairly slowly. Vickers HMGs would seem to be the best weapon to use against the Germans at that range (1000 meters plus or so it seemed). I could see why the New Zealanders pulled off the hill that night because they did not realize how it commanded the airfield. It would have been very hard to see what was happening there.
The French 75mm which was in place (not on pt107 but in direct line of sight of the airfield) had a much flatter trajectory and was used as an AT Gun in this period. At one point "over 60 Ju's" were on the airfield and on fire.
I hate to question oral histories, but too many incorrect stories come out of them. The person honestly, 110% believes, but as the Digger in the trench cant know exactly what hit what.
Could have been a Vickers or Bofors or 3" AA or 75mm shell, a hit on a load of explosives creates an explosion, must have been a 25pdr even though we couldnt squeeze them on the Destroyer that lifted us of the beaches of Kalamanata!
Part of 22Bns problem is that more than 10 coomands were represented on Maleme Airfield, nobody was in charge, plus when the CO (Andrews?) reported he moved the HQ, higher ups assumed the whole Bn was evacuating and a complete evacuation occured. Total SNAFU!
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
RE: 37 mm AT Gun hits 1 - WTF ???
1. I think you are playing a human opponent. That can be a significant factor to take into account.
It's against the AI.
3. You did not lose the equivalent of two armies at Chungking, however without providing the data (best done via screenshots) who knows exactly what really occurred. Most likely you merely suffered disablements. Japanese disablements usually recover much more quickly than chinese disablements which are hamstrung by lack of supply.
Seriously, I lost thousands of destroyed infantry squads and hundreds of tanks. I know what I lost, and I called it the equivalent of two armies.
[/quote](c) Three Japanese infantry divisions to invest Chungking is just laughable.
Obviously, I did attack with more, since I told that I could at most muster six more.
I thinned down to three divisions on-site to provoke bloody Chinese attacks.
Lots of infantry divisions are trying to rebuild at Chengtu, none of them are back at more than 75% of their original strength yet. One was decimated to battalion strength and was sent to Changsha as occupation force. One tank regiment was annihilated.
5. Again the wrong metric is being used. How many times does it have to be said that AV is fairly meaningless; what matters is combat firepower. Here Japan has a distinct advantage, not just in the raw firepower of its devices compared to Chinese devices but in being able to bring it to bear effectively as your disruption, morale and leadership levels should be far superior.
Except that betting on superior quality once led to more losses than conquering or encircling everything on my side of Lanchow.
6. Who said anything about more brute force being the key to cracking open Chungking. In my earlier post I said you needed a proper army attacking. reading between the lines, and really I shouldn't have to do so, it doesn't seem like you have a proper army present.
You read wrongly.
I had
16 infantry divisions
2 tank divisions
7 tank regiments
2 armoured car companies
1 mixed brigade
1 infantry regiment
3 HQc
approx. 90% of all field and heavy artillery units of the IJA
300 bombers (4x250 kg each) for preparatory ground attack
The vast majority of which were 100% prepared for this location.
Almost all non-ART units were set to deliberate attack.
7. You are not conducting a properly co-ordinated combined arms operation. The hyperlink I gave before explained what should be done. In short you are badly misusing your air force.
Except of course you have no clue about what I actually did.
(a) You say there is still 50-70 LI centres. As it has been your intention from the beginning to destroy the industrial infrastructure, you should not have used your air force on anything other than industry destruction. Nor have launched any land attacks until subjective had been accomplished.
Except that after weeks of bombardment with 300+ bombers I learned I couldn't make progress below LI about 60.
The refineries at Lanchow and Sian have been knocked out (and kept so) since early 1942 (Kweisui airbase) and the entire Chinese army thus received almost no supplies from HI during 1942. This doesn't look mishandled to me.
(b) It was probably not the best to have launched any bombers at all on city attack. That many Chinese mouths quickly consume the available supplies plus with the rest of China in your hands, the necessary raw materials to feed the Chungking industry would be lacking. More importantly, for the reasons outlined in the other thread, your bombers should be conducting airfield attacks which can be a force multiplier to land attacks.
Chungking has its own supply of raw materials, which suffices to supply its LI (as long as I had no ground units in the hex) even before taking into account that necessarily huge resource stocks exist in the city due to the inactive Chinese HI and months of surplus resource production by the Chinese.
-
Bullwinkle58
- Posts: 11297
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm
RE: 37 mm AT Gun hits 1 - WTF ???
ORIGINAL: JSG
1. I think you are playing a human opponent. That can be a significant factor to take into account.It's against the AI.
Full stop.
That is a highly significant factor. Depending on the difficulty level you are playing, supply state in Chungking might be a non-factor for the Chinese. At high levels the AI doesn't use supplies to fight. Even at low levels of difficulty it gets combat advantages, some unknown to this day by players, as well as extra aircraft, lack of need to prep, etc.
Alfred is a kind of Yoda figure around here, and his analyses are always complete and useful if he has proper and complete information. That you are playing the AI is probably the most important factor you did not mention.
Re Chungking and the forts: what is the count and status of Japan's combat engineers in the siege?
The Moose
-
Chickenboy
- Posts: 24648
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
- Location: San Antonio, TX
RE: 37 mm AT Gun hits 1 - WTF ???
Hi again, JSG.
You've received some input to your original script / typeface question. I can't help but noticing that your thread has now changed its tack significantly since then to a strategy / supply management / resource reduction / nebulous topic du jour.
These threads typically meander along until someone overstates their case, gets their feelings hurt and name calling / posturing results. It's usually not good, in my experience to let threads burn out in this manner.
So, I'll revert to your original question again.
You've received some thoughts about why it's displaying in that manner. If these provide an unsatisfactory answer in your mind, you may wish to contact technical support. That's another sub-forum under the WiTP:AE forum. My experience with them is that they are very quick to respond to your queries and most helpful. Here's hoping that they can find the root cause of your (likely errant) 37mm AT gun in the combat reporting.
Until then, if you have some additional questions or thoughts regarding the China campaign, there are numerous AARs that have a great deal of activity in China. You may benefit from reading these. If you have further questions, we're always happy to help.
You've received some input to your original script / typeface question. I can't help but noticing that your thread has now changed its tack significantly since then to a strategy / supply management / resource reduction / nebulous topic du jour.
These threads typically meander along until someone overstates their case, gets their feelings hurt and name calling / posturing results. It's usually not good, in my experience to let threads burn out in this manner.
So, I'll revert to your original question again.
You've received some thoughts about why it's displaying in that manner. If these provide an unsatisfactory answer in your mind, you may wish to contact technical support. That's another sub-forum under the WiTP:AE forum. My experience with them is that they are very quick to respond to your queries and most helpful. Here's hoping that they can find the root cause of your (likely errant) 37mm AT gun in the combat reporting.
Until then, if you have some additional questions or thoughts regarding the China campaign, there are numerous AARs that have a great deal of activity in China. You may benefit from reading these. If you have further questions, we're always happy to help.
-
Bullwinkle58
- Posts: 11297
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm
RE: 37 mm AT Gun hits 1 - WTF ???
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Hi again, JSG.
You've received some input to your original script / typeface question. I can't help but noticing that your thread has now changed its tack significantly since then to a strategy / supply management / resource reduction / nebulous topic du jour.
If you look at Post #7 you'll see that it was the OP which re-directed the thread. Since then several players have taken siginificant time to respond to a newbie's uninformed "WTF" title and Post #7.
If that's OK with you.
The Moose