The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ)

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

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

Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ)

Post by Alfred »

Crackaces,

You might want to check if Bombay is still producing supply off its accumulated/imported feedstocks. In one of the betas michaelm removed the capacity for secondary industry to produce when the hex is occupied by the enemy. That tweek has been reversed in a more recent beta and the prior state has been restored.

Alfred
User avatar
GreyJoy
Posts: 6750
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:34 pm

RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ)

Post by GreyJoy »

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Crackaces,

You might want to check if Bombay is still producing supply off its accumulated/imported feedstocks. In one of the betas michaelm removed the capacity for secondary industry to produce when the hex is occupied by the enemy. That tweek has been reversed in a more recent beta and the prior state has been restored.

Alfred

in my DBB game (very latest beta), Bombay when sieged was producing supplies, but ONLY by LI, having HI, Res and every other industry shut down by the enemy presence in the hex.
User avatar
Crackaces
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 3:39 pm

RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ)

Post by Crackaces »

If the KB is closing the sealanes to India, and if all those divisions are involved in India, what about sending a massive reinforcement convoy to something like...Timor? You should be able to get there in time...


I do have something in mind [8D] I have been moving BF's to PH and out to outlying areas to set up patrol zones. My biggest concern about a large operation is that I will draw in BB TF's without proper support. So I am using the headroom to establish an MLR with interlocking patrol zones ..
Crackaces,

You might want to check if Bombay is still producing supply off its accumulated/imported feedstocks. In one of the betas michaelm removed the capacity for secondary industry to produce when the hex is occupied by the enemy. That tweek has been reversed in a more recent beta and the prior state has been restored.

Alfred


Bombay has stopped producing supply, but only because the resources are cut off ...
"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"
User avatar
Crackaces
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 3:39 pm

RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ)

Post by Crackaces »

There is one frustrating thing about an Invasion of India. Withdrawals. Very soon key units occupying Bombay will withdraw handing over Bombay to the IJ. Without sparking controversy amongst the religious powers to be in this forum .. I do believe the continued withdrawal of forces once the border has been violated, and a fixed known LOD provides too much impetus for the IJ to conduct an India invasion.... a little bit of unknown would add some drama to this game ...

As far as the game goes .. the IJ invaded Darwin and now have another IJ group stuck in a contest ..what the IJ do not know is that reserve forces are ready to move in .. if this goes past two weeks of so ...NOTE the supply(-) on the battle of the 9th ... this will take some time to drop off supplies ...


March 8th
Ground combat at Darwin (76,124)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 11899 troops, 68 guns, 42 vehicles, Assault Value = 471

Defending force 9088 troops, 85 guns, 50 vehicles, Assault Value = 159

Japanese adjusted assault: 107

Allied adjusted defense: 345

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 3 (fort level 3)

Combat modifiers
Defender: forts(+), leaders(+), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
521 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 55 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Allied ground losses:
216 casualties reported
Squads: 11 destroyed, 13 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 11 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled

Assaulting units:
65th Brigade
4th Ind.Mixed Regiment
II./4th Infantry Battalion
I./4th Infantry Battalion
16th Recon Regiment
2nd Engineer Regiment

Defending units:
2/2nd Ind Coy
Sparrow Battalion
19th Australian Battalion
............

March 9th:
Ground combat at Darwin (76,124)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 15496 troops, 85 guns, 42 vehicles, Assault Value = 432

Defending force 8790 troops, 85 guns, 50 vehicles, Assault Value = 139

Japanese adjusted assault: 106

Allied adjusted defense: 154

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 3)

Combat modifiers
Defender: forts(+), leaders(+), experience(-)
Attacker: supply(-)

Japanese ground losses:
838 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 81 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 7 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Guns lost 7 (1 destroyed, 6 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
852 casualties reported
Squads: 11 destroyed, 85 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 12 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Guns lost 7 (1 destroyed, 6 disabled)

Assaulting units:
I./4th Infantry Battalion
4th Ind.Mixed Regiment
II./4th Infantry Battalion
16th Recon Regiment
65th Brigade
2nd Engineer Regiment

Defending units:
19th Australian Battalion
Sparrow Battalion
Gull Battalion
Emery Point Fortress
Darwin RAAF Base Force
2nd RAN Base Force
2/2nd Ind Coy
1st RAAF Supt Wing
Northern Territory
A/B Battery Heavy Coastal Artillery Regiment
"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"
User avatar
zuluhour
Posts: 5244
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:16 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ)

Post by zuluhour »

AFB Support Group on deck sir!

I am in a CG2 myself and between IJ grabbing the whole map and me trying to save a couple of measly political points to counter it, find myself having quite a few WTF moments gazing at all the little red base dots. I have no idea how Dan can amass so much infantry and support in spring '42 outside CenPac. I play a "romantic" style I guess and use quite a few PPs on COs. Anyways, I concur on the unit withdrawal issue.

Image
Attachments
art3.jpg
art3.jpg (63.98 KiB) Viewed 408 times
User avatar
Crackaces
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 3:39 pm

RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ)

Post by Crackaces »

Right now the IJ are stopped dead cold at Bombay .. they do not have the supplies to even bombard .. I cut them off again this turn form getting supplies ..More reinforcements are slowly on the way from Karachi ..

At Darwin .. the IJ are lacking supplies, are fatigued, and are disrupted .. but they continue to give out a lot more than they are taking ..

MAR 12th 1942:
Ground combat at Darwin (76,124)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 13870 troops, 83 guns, 41 vehicles, Assault Value = 277

Defending force 7520 troops, 75 guns, 49 vehicles, Assault Value = 34

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 0

Japanese adjusted assault: 35

Allied adjusted defense: 49

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 0)

Combat modifiers
Defender: leaders(+)
Attacker: disruption(-), fatigue(-), supply(-)

Japanese ground losses:
521 casualties reported
Squads: 9 destroyed, 27 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Allied ground losses:
649 casualties reported
Squads: 28 destroyed, 5 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 15 disabled
Engineers: 5 destroyed, 4 disabled
Guns lost 9 (6 destroyed, 3 disabled)

Assaulting units:
16th Recon Regiment
II./4th Infantry Battalion
I./4th Infantry Battalion
65th Brigade
4th Ind.Mixed Regiment
2nd Engineer Regiment

Defending units:
Sparrow Battalion
Gull Battalion
Emery Point Fortress
Northern Territory
19th Australian Battalion
1st RAAF Supt Wing
2/2nd Ind Coy
2nd RAN Base Force
Darwin RAAF Base Force
A/B Battery Heavy Coastal Artillery Regiment


One good piece of news .. after taking the forts down to level 0 .. this turn they built back up to level 1 .. not much .. I believe is a 10% whack on firepower and increase of AV .. could be close next turn and every adjustment is helpful to keep this battle going ... about 3,000 IJ casualties so far to take Darwin ..

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"
User avatar
Crackaces
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 3:39 pm

RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ)

Post by Crackaces »

AFB Support Group on deck sir!


Welcome Aboard Zuluhour!

I will not be updating this AAR like my last AAR. I will highlight main strategic outcomes and the operations around these outcomes for discussion ...
"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"
User avatar
zuluhour
Posts: 5244
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:16 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ)

Post by zuluhour »

aye aye! Been here for awhile, I just have very little to add. I find it very stressing as allies for the first twelve months or so and read as many as AARs as I can.
User avatar
Crackaces
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 3:39 pm

RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ)

Post by Crackaces »

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

aye aye! Been here for awhile, I just have very little to add. I find it very stressing as allies for the first twelve months or so and read as many as AARs as I can.

and I think my opponents main objective is to make this game as stressful as possible in the first year .. [8D]

Things are starting to shape up although .. I will post a map tomorrow ...
"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"
User avatar
Crackaces
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 3:39 pm

RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ)

Post by Crackaces »

Poona holds one more turn frustrating the IJ advance on Bombay ... Strategically I see this as a victory of sorts because I am tying up IJ resources that could be raising hell in other places ..



Image
Attachments
India19March.jpg
India19March.jpg (615.01 KiB) Viewed 407 times
"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"
User avatar
Crackaces
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 3:39 pm

RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ)

Post by Crackaces »

Meanwhile .. as AFB's know it is time for the CV's to get their upgrades .. I have moved my CV's to a unknown undisclosed location for the upgrades .. the IJ have no clue where these assets are .. and I have no intention of showing my hand until I need to execute an operation ... IN the meantime resources and platforms move to Pearl Harbor as well as the staging points. It is my plan to suddenly strike where the IJ are not ...probably in June 1942 but we shall see how the map and IJ MLR lays at that time ..
"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"
User avatar
zuluhour
Posts: 5244
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:16 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ)

Post by zuluhour »

PI still quiet? Heavy forts now?
User avatar
Crackaces
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 3:39 pm

RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ)

Post by Crackaces »

Here is PI as of March 20, 1942. I single IJ division of 16K troops has implanted themselves on Luzon .. more forces to the North ...PI will eventually fall but when and with how many resources is the question ..



Image
Attachments
PI.jpg
PI.jpg (353.15 KiB) Viewed 413 times
"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"
User avatar
zuluhour
Posts: 5244
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:16 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ)

Post by zuluhour »

You may be able to make Cebu difficult for him as well, generating it's own supply, maybe airlift some outlying units in?
User avatar
Crackaces
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 3:39 pm

RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ)

Post by Crackaces »

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

You may be able to make Cebu difficult for him as well, generating it's own supply, maybe airlift some outlying units in?

Good suggestion .. I did not think about supply generation here ..

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"
User avatar
Crackaces
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 3:39 pm

RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ)

Post by Crackaces »

Well I was avoiding detail in this AAR but I just had a smash up with 2 IJ CL's with 4DD's and of course we take the worse of it off Perth .. ASW forces are restricted to only ASW ships and the CL's had their way ...this also means the IJ are willing to use surface forces to interdict here and changes the dynamics ..



Image
Attachments
PerthASWSC.jpg
PerthASWSC.jpg (503.05 KiB) Viewed 413 times
"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"
User avatar
Crackaces
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 3:39 pm

RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ)

Post by Crackaces »

The main mission for the IJ attack in India was to disrupt supply/industry and destroy the Commonwealth forces .. the IJ are accomplishing both objectives although I am delaying the IJA from securing Bombay ..

Ground combat at Poona (36,26)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 22486 troops, 177 guns, 68 vehicles, Assault Value = 732

Defending force 8455 troops, 90 guns, 261 vehicles, Assault Value = 129

Japanese adjusted assault: 326

Allied adjusted defense: 215

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

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 0

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

Japanese ground losses:
618 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 55 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 14 (1 destroyed, 13 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
464 casualties reported
Squads: 25 destroyed, 7 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 21 disabled
Engineers: 7 destroyed, 3 disabled
Guns lost 7 (5 destroyed, 2 disabled)

............

The nuances in this game are intriguing ...The IJ are taking more casualties but the Allies are taking more destroyed squads. The IJ will quite rapidly repair the disabled squads while it will be years before these destroyed squads are replenished. I am sacrificing blood for time... each of these contests are Pyrrhic victories of sorts [:(]

In the meantime the Allies are doing all the can in this game ..
"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"
User avatar
Crackaces
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 3:39 pm

RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ)

Post by Crackaces »

Enclosed is a strategic map of the situation Turn 110. Do note that this map does not reflect the extended map and ability of the IJ to cutoff Aden from Karachi ...

In short the IJ are locked up in sieges at Bombay that includes Poona, Colombo, and Darwin. Last turn in an attempt to help Darwin another 10K troops dropped off with supplies and experienced the wrath of the shore batteries ... This is my current strategy .. keep the IJ busy .. do not commit too many forces .. and keep these siege situations going on as long as possible ..

Image
Attachments
StratgicM..rch1942.jpg
StratgicM..rch1942.jpg (291.83 KiB) Viewed 413 times
"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"
User avatar
zuluhour
Posts: 5244
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:16 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ)

Post by zuluhour »

I would suspect the SCTF off Perth was really looking for fuel from Cape Town, although if I was IJ I would consider a merchant hunting group well outside Perth's air coverage with a small CVE for spotting and AMCs. Have you set up any rear area SoPac bases for fuel relay to Australia and supplies for future Ops in SwPac? I had forgotten how few USN base forces there are in '42 and sent one to NorPac ergo wasting a month getting it where it is needed. At least to this point much of the south Pacific is free and IJ search ability severely restricted.
User avatar
Crackaces
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 3:39 pm

RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ)

Post by Crackaces »

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

I would suspect the SCTF off Perth was really looking for fuel from Cape Town, although if I was IJ I would consider a merchant hunting group well outside Perth's air coverage with a small CVE for spotting and AMCs. Have you set up any rear area SoPac bases for fuel relay to Australia and supplies for future Ops in SwPac? I had forgotten how few USN base forces there are in '42 and sent one to NorPac ergo wasting a month getting it where it is needed. At least to this point much of the south Pacific is free and IJ search ability severely restricted.

His CV's are busy keeping Karachi cut off ... if he would show me any CV's not within range of India .. I would reinforce India with 5K AV and tons of supply ... that would be a disaster of major proportions given the dire situation of trapped troops involved in sieges .. so he keeps diligence ..

SoPac is building up its supply run [8D]
"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”