Islands of Destiny: RA 5.0 Japanese Side

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Chickenboy, I agree with your sentiments. Too often we lose sight that this game operates pretty much as an abstraction.

Actually, with the improved AA effectiveness (yes, even Japan) and the buffing up of the George and Jack fighters, I still have American heavy and medium bomber units that are empty or flying obsolete aircraft in 1/44. I am fairly cautious with my bombers but replacements for the Allies are pretty thin and I am losing more this campaign that the last (stock) campaign. It is starting to get better for me but I am losing bombers.

[John 3rd]

WISH I had Jack. Not in any of my Mods...

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

In fact, I can tell you that the allied casualty reports for the German forces in Cobra were remarkably accurate.

Which was due to an accurate assessment being possible because the ground could be captured and assessed immediately after the operation. That was a unique set of circumstances.

Where casualty assessments had to be made only based on air crew claims, maybe some post bombing photo recon combined with incomplete knowledge of what the enemy strength was both prior and post bombing...the results were predictably less than ideal.

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

ORIGINAL: MechFO

straight from amazon:

Despatches in this volume include Air Operations in Burma and Bay of Bengal 1 January to 22 May 1942 by General Wavell, the despatch on air operations in South-East Asia November 1943 to May 1944, by Air Chief Marshal Sir R.E.C. Peirse, the despatch on air operations in South-East Asia from June 1944 to May 1945, by Air Chief Marshal Sir Keith Park, and the despatch on air operations in South East Asia between May 1945 and September 1945, by Air Chief Marshal Sir Keith Park.

This unique collection of original documents will prove to be an invaluable resource for historians, students and all those interested in what was one of the most significant periods in British military history.

Published normally implies more than simple reprinting of somebody else's documents.

ORIGINAL: Aurorus
If you want to corroborate allied After Action Reports with those of the Japanese, you will at pains to do so. The Japanese war archives are scattered and partial. As with Germany, many documents were destroyed, both by the axis government figures and in the general destruction of Germany and Japan in the final years of the war. Keep in mind that most of the history of the war, until fairly recently, was based almost exclusively on allied After Action Reports. It was only about 20 years ago that an Englishman, who was a colleague of mine at the time at university, wrote the first history of the Normandy campaign that used both German and English-language sources. It was his doctorial dissertation, and I believe is now a published book.

So you agree you base your opinion of effectiveness on reports that without fail have been shown to have massively overestimated damage inflicted in each and every case where such reports have been cross checked. Thank you.

It is not accurate at all to state that allied After Action Reports "massively overestimated damaged inflicted in each and every case." That is simply not true. You sell the British and American commanders very short in assuming that they solicited or believed grossly exaggerated casualty estimates. In many cases, the allies actually underestimated the effectiveness of their operations.

The people involved in military intelligence and reconnaissance were very good on both the axis and the allied side. This was a different time in history, when people were, in general, more honest. The goal and focus of military intelligence was very different then. It has since become a proving ground for liars and its goals have become political: i.e. weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. At that time, the goal was accuracy, and it was achieved more often than later skeptics and critics admit. This is often the case in the study of history, where future generations assume, with arrogance, their inferiority of their predecessors.

I wish you the best of luck in your research.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

That was well said Poultry Man. We'll see what happens next turn as the troops try to hold Batangas. I've got over 200 fighters scheduled to be on LRCAP at either 15K or 30K. We'll see what happens...

I guess I have more rain to add to this AAR[8|]: if this happened to me, i.e. Japan defending in open terrain, I could expect to be swept so heavily...and my LRCAP would just be shredded. And then the likely air fields they flew from would also be swept, and of course everything would be bombed too.

I have defended open terrain against the Allies in 43 and 44...but it was with 10+ good AA units present, ENG units present to provide radar and some soak, and of course lots of ART -- so there was lots of units there to soak up the bombers attacks and not just the infantry.

I would cycle units in and out, break divisions down to their thirds, but leave one as the target which would act as a bomber soak unit.

My rule of thumb is that Japan can only defend in x2 or better, with forts, and every position has ART/ENG/AA and preferably HQ all prepped or prepping for bases, but often defending in non base x2 or x3 terrain was better. Preferably the infantry has 43 squads.

Heck, even the 20 and 25mm AA rapidfire guns provide a benefit in that they get targeted...preserving somewhat the infantry..even if they can't shoot down diddly.

NO AA or ART present then there was no chance of holding. Troops would be shattered for absolutely minimal damage done in return.

Tank units I used as a mobile fire brigade and reserve.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Aurorus
The game is not going to punish the allies for focusing on ground troops.

I think anyone that plays this game knows what the game will or won't do code-wise by this point. I'm not expecting a re-write. My comments were in the context of what a more balanced approach would be.

It wouldn't be hard at all to code in some 'friendly fire' or counter-battery fire casualties when strategic bombers are used on ground attack with friendly troops in the same hex. Easy as pie. One could probably use a metric similar to the counter-battery fire or a percentage damage allotted to the Allied side receiving friendly fire.

For example, Allies might suffer 10-20% of the casualties the enemy does based upon 'short drops' and miscommunication. That percentage could go down or up in that range based upon crew experience, HQ experience, fatigue, spotting DL, recon, terrain, etc.

In any case, I didn't say "focus on ground troops". Your words. I said use of heavy bombers in a close air support mission. That means with friendly troops in the same hex for the intents and purposes of this game. Focusing on ground troops is expected and there are myriad examples of heavy bombers doing just that. Just not with friendly troops in intimate contact.

That is the job of Japanese player. I think that 18 B-29s shot down in one day is the "punishment" that you are looking for.

Meh. I'm actually looking for something different. I'd feel better if there was a regimented 'punishment' unique to the use of heavy bombers in a close air support mission. Fighter intercepts will happen and they are insufficient dissuasion in and of themselves.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Aurorus
It has since become a proving ground for liars and its goals have become political: i.e. weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. At that time, the goal was accuracy, and it was achieved more often than later skeptics and critics admit. This is often the case in the study of history, where future generations assume, with arrogance, their inferiority of their predecessors.

Knock it off.

Tarring a branch of the service with your broad brush of damnation on *this* site is most unwelcome. Your proselytizing about the woeful state of current generations vis a vis past generations is also also yawn-inducing sociopolitical drivel.

I know several people in military intelligence, JAG and related fields. They are-without exception-honorable and good people.

You're new here-relatively speaking-and you haven't posted much. So consider this a pleasant request to check your language and your political bent at the door before you post.

[adarbrauner]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
For example, Allies might suffer 10-20% of the casualties the enemy does based upon 'short drops' and miscommunication. That percentage could go down or up in that range based upon crew experience, HQ experience, fatigue, spotting DL, recon, terrain, etc.

There was not only the preparing bomardement around St Lo before Cobra.

there was also Goodwood before, and others:

"Middlebrook's "Bomber Command War diaries" has the following for 30 June (pg 536) under the heading "Villers-Bocage".

"266 aircraft - 151 Lancasters, 105 Halifaxes, 10 Mosquitoes of 3, 4 and 8 Groups to bomb a road junction through which the tanks of two German Panzer Divisions, the 2nd and 9th, would have to pass in order to carry out a planned attack on the junction of the British and american Armies in Normandy, that night. The raid was controlled with great care by the master bomber, who ordered the bombing force to come down to 4000ft in order to be sure of seeing the markers in the smoke and dust of the exploding bombs. 1100 tons of bombs were dropped with great accuracy and the planned German attack did not take place. 1 Halifax and 1 Lancaster lost."

There was a say in Normandy: "when the RAF strikes, Jerry ducks; when the Luftwaffe strikes, the British ducks; when the Americans strike, everyone duck"[:D]

Any how your idea and suggestion is sound, I like it.

[MakeeLearn]

I haven't played far enough into the game and I don't have access to it at the moment, so Is napalm modeled in WitPAE?

Daisy cutters were made in theatre by wrapping thick wire around the bomb.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
For example, Allies might suffer 10-20% of the casualties the enemy does based upon 'short drops' and miscommunication. That percentage could go down or up in that range based upon crew experience, HQ experience, fatigue, spotting DL, recon, terrain, etc.

There was not only the preparing bomardement around St Lo before Cobra.

there was also Goodwood before, and others:

"Middlebrook's "Bomber Command War diaries" has the following for 30 June (pg 536) under the heading "Villers-Bocage".

"266 aircraft - 151 Lancasters, 105 Halifaxes, 10 Mosquitoes of 3, 4 and 8 Groups to bomb a road junction through which the tanks of two German Panzer Divisions, the 2nd and 9th, would have to pass in order to carry out a planned attack on the junction of the British and american Armies in Normandy, that night. The raid was controlled with great care by the master bomber, who ordered the bombing force to come down to 4000ft in order to be sure of seeing the markers in the smoke and dust of the exploding bombs. 1100 tons of bombs were dropped with great accuracy and the planned German attack did not take place. 1 Halifax and 1 Lancaster lost."

I don't consider this setup the same as that of the massed Cobra attack with troops waiting for a jump off signal. Many of those Cobra troops were within a few thousand feet of the jump off line. The use of medium bombers to blast roads, railways, marshalling yards, etc. was commonplace. What you've cited is effective interdiction, not massed bomber close air support.

[MakeeLearn]

After Cobra, Doolittle came up with a technique of marking the Allied front line using colored AA fired in a continuous line. This proved very effective in trials. The breakout put it on hold.

[John 3rd]

June 10, 1944

A little action sees 15 Frank escort 19 Jills against a FTF at Oroquieta. Scratch a APD and add a DD hit as well.

[John 3rd]

June 10, 1944
Legaspi

Did a mouse over and got this. I have to believe it is pretty accurate since the base is getting observed every turn.

Need thoughts. Is this appropriate? Should I say something? Am at a loss...

[John 3rd]

Massive ATA over Luzon. Here are the losses for the day:

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

June 10, 1944
Legaspi

Did a mouse over and got this. I have to believe it is pretty accurate since the base is getting observed every turn.

Need thoughts. Is this appropriate? Should I say something? Am at a loss...

The only thing I can think you're pointing toward is the number of aircraft at his level 9 base. Is there a limit you self impose, and did you agree on some limit with Dan?

What loss are you at?

[1275psi]

For an area of 45 miles by 45, level 9........plenty realistic.
How many planes on Saipan in 44?, and that was a lot smaller area

John, at some stage you have to face it, from here on in the allies win nearly everything.
There is much enjoyment to be had in making it as painful as you can for them.
This is where we measure what sort of Japanese player you really are, when you
no longer have a deck full of Aces, but he does.

[ny59giants]

AF9:
Unlimited number of planes allowed...checked!
Doubles Aviation Support values...checked!
Ability to repair planes with over 1000 engines present...highly doubtful! [;)]

As your screenshot shows, he probably has an increasing number of damaged planes there in various states of repairs. By this time in the war both sides need a few AF9 to allow excessive planes to be based there. Both sides are short Aviation Support.

[Lowpe]

I think John is pointing out that there isn't really that much there...which is worrisome.

That is a pretty normal day for plane losses....you bleed and bleed and bleed in mid 44. Which is why I still think your fighter production is low but might barely suffice once the Frank B comes along.

Nothing to be done but be creative in how you use your fighters selling them dearly.[:)]

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

AF9:
Unlimited number of planes allowed...checked!
Doubles Aviation Support values...checked!
Ability to repair planes with over 1000 engines present...highly doubtful! [;)]

As your screenshot shows, he probably has an increasing number of damaged planes there in various states of repairs. By this time in the war both sides need a few AF9 to allow excessive planes to be based there. Both sides are short Aviation Support.

If he has 1500+ aviation support I don't think he will have any problem with aircraft maintenance.
Massive concentrations or air are the new normal in the late war.
Just look at the Greyjoy game that broke the air model for a good example.

[John 3rd]

I did the screenshot simply to demonstrate the massiveness of what is present. When I first saw the numbers I had the 'what the HE**??!!' reaction then immediately shifted gears reminding myself what time the game has moved to. I keep having to remind myself how deep we are into the game. The scale and scope of what the Allies can do continues to simply amaze me. One can read about it and understand from books but to actually SEE it is staggering.

Does that make sense?

He bombed Batangas with everything he had last turn. There were TWENTY-FOUR separate strikes that hit the troops. Let me provide details on the first 10 Raids:

57 DB 110 Cas
31 DB 84 Cas
111 Liberators/36 B-29/28 2EB 440 Cas
25 DB 53 Cas
15 DB 29 cas
60 Liberators 334 Cas
30 Lib/9 B-29/9 2EB 169 Cas
12 B-29 35 Cas
11 Lib/3 B-29/3 A-20 38 Cas
6 Lib/12 2EB 59 Cas
...fourteen more strikes followed.

When I sent the turn to Dan my simple note was "OK. B-29s on close air ground support??!! Makes sense."

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I think John is pointing out that there isn't really that much there...which is worrisome.

That is a pretty normal day for plane losses....you bleed and bleed and bleed in mid 44. Which is why I still think your fighter production is low but might barely suffice once the Frank B comes along.

Nothing to be done but be creative in how you use your fighters selling them dearly.[:)]

I truly understand your comments on Fighter production. I THOUGHT the numbers were pretty good. Not now. Have to change that and these convoys of TKs getting thru will help some.

As mentioned in the above Post I just made adjusting my head to the reality of scale and scope is difficult. Getting game thru 1942 is easy. Then 1943 becomes pretty interesting. From 1944 forward is just...wow...