Islands of Destiny: RA 5.0 Japanese Side

[Capt. Harlock]

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."

Out of curiousity, what altitude were those B-29 strikes at?

[John 3rd]

10,000 Feet.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: obvert
The one limitation that leads to 4Es being used so much to support ground troops is the inability of the game to show the effectiveness of F/FB in strafing and close support rocket and bomb strikes. This part of the game just isn't viable on a large scale, as it was in the war, so the 4Es take that role.

I get your suggested point and crsutton's counterpoint. But is this a question of 'inability of the game' or 'just the way things work out'? I've not seen many late war games where Allied players really-o truly-o give ground attack FBs precedence. The P-47s are worth their weight in gold in the air war in most AARs I've seen. I've not seen a convincing Allied effort to separate out the heavier FBs for airfield strafing / rocket attacks as it's usually 'all hands on deck' for capable A2A airframes.

So, until I'm convinced that mass application of Allied FB firepower has been tried and universally recognized as incapable, I really can't say that it's a game 'inability' so much as a supply:demand issue. Most players would probably commit to air superiority and neutralizing the enemy's A2A options, so it kind of makes it their choice for why FBs / ground attack isn't as effective as IRL.

[John 3rd]

Agree with that. Think A2A is the far more important element.

The thing that gets me is in that last set of attacks I posted, Dan used nearly 70 B-29, 250 Liberators, but only 125 or so 2EB. Where are they? Should have them by the bucket and they were MEANT to be used tactically. Using 4-500 of those things would be horrific while the heavies bombed the heck out of AFs, Ports, and Industry.

The more I tend to think about this the better I like it. For over a month now those heavies could have been used to crush Fort construction in Formosa, Okinawa, or the other bases I am feverishly trying to build up. This doesn't include any Industry/Oil attack of which there have been NONE.

Perhaps it is a blessing in some ways but I really, truly dislike it.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: obvert
The one limitation that leads to 4Es being used so much to support ground troops is the inability of the game to show the effectiveness of F/FB in strafing and close support rocket and bomb strikes. This part of the game just isn't viable on a large scale, as it was in the war, so the 4Es take that role.

I get your suggested point and crsutton's counterpoint. But is this a question of 'inability of the game' or 'just the way things work out'? I've not seen many late war games where Allied players really-o truly-o give ground attack FBs precedence. The P-47s are worth their weight in gold in the air war in most AARs I've seen. I've not seen a convincing Allied effort to separate out the heavier FBs for airfield strafing / rocket attacks as it's usually 'all hands on deck' for capable A2A airframes.

So, until I'm convinced that mass application of Allied FB firepower has been tried and universally recognized as incapable, I really can't say that it's a game 'inability' so much as a supply:demand issue. Most players would probably commit to air superiority and neutralizing the enemy's A2A options, so it kind of makes it their choice for why FBs / ground attack isn't as effective as IRL.

Strafing against ground troops has negligible impact. There are no air launched rockets or napalm in game.

The demand issue is there, yes, but that is specific to the conditions of game, especially PDU-ON and of course non-historical OOB scenarios with the added ability of the player to R & D airframes well ahead of their historical arrival dates.

I self-imposed an HR against 4E ground bombing in my previous Allied game against Greyjoy because I wanted to see what the 2E, FB and some fighters would do. You'll never use the P-47s as they were in the war for many reasons, not the least that the Japanese have a wildy different OOB, service capability and inter-service coordination ability in the air war than they did historically. I play Japan as you know and intimately understand the huge advantages a Japanese player has even in a stock game over historical. Japan did not and could not have made 250-400 Tojos per month in 42, 300-400 George/Jack per month in 43-45 and 300 Franks per month in 43-45.

So the P-47, at less than 1,200 production in 43-44 (pre-N version) simply can't keep up unitl the P-51 and Corsairs start to come in numbers mid-late 44.

In my experience the FBs and attack bombers can get by with low levels runs against lightly defended troops, but with decent AA in hex, especially in DBB scenarios, but even late patch stock really, the losses are heavy compared to the impact.

With certain CAP settings (low layered CAP) even the P-47 struggles to match Japanese 2nd and 3rd gen fighters, so it's also hard to punch a hole the FB or 2E can get through, but 4E will actually get through to target even in the face of losses. I was happy in that game to lose 300 airframes in a days battle over Rabaul in 43 just to get the fields almost closed and get the defenders worn out so that after a few more turns (of more losses) I would finally have air supremacy.

Historically fighters would have also been there straffing fields, hitting supply dumps, targeting specific logistical support. In game it just doesn't work that way.

[AcePylut]

I think if you want to see the airframes used more realistically, then you have to play Scen 1 with PDU off.

As long as the Japanese can crank out a billion fighters a month with exp 70+ pilots thanks to "training" missions in China... the Allies have to counter, and the counter is to use every available airframe for air superiority.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: obvert
The one limitation that leads to 4Es being used so much to support ground troops is the inability of the game to show the effectiveness of F/FB in strafing and close support rocket and bomb strikes. This part of the game just isn't viable on a large scale, as it was in the war, so the 4Es take that role.

I get your suggested point and crsutton's counterpoint. But is this a question of 'inability of the game' or 'just the way things work out'? I've not seen many late war games where Allied players really-o truly-o give ground attack FBs precedence. The P-47s are worth their weight in gold in the air war in most AARs I've seen. I've not seen a convincing Allied effort to separate out the heavier FBs for airfield strafing / rocket attacks as it's usually 'all hands on deck' for capable A2A airframes.

So, until I'm convinced that mass application of Allied FB firepower has been tried and universally recognized as incapable, I really can't say that it's a game 'inability' so much as a supply:demand issue. Most players would probably commit to air superiority and neutralizing the enemy's A2A options, so it kind of makes it their choice for why FBs / ground attack isn't as effective as IRL.

Strafing against ground troops has negligible impact. There are no air launched rockets or napalm in game.

The demand issue is there, yes, but that is specific to the conditions of game, especially PDU-ON and of course non-historical OOB scenarios with the added ability of the player to R & D airframes well ahead of their historical arrival dates.

I self-imposed an HR against 4E ground bombing in my previous Allied game against Greyjoy because I wanted to see what the 2E, FB and some fighters would do. You'll never use the P-47s as they were in the war for many reasons, not the least that the Japanese have a wildy different OOB, service capability and inter-service coordination ability in the air war than they did historically. I play Japan as you know and intimately understand the huge advantages a Japanese player has even in a stock game over historical. Japan did not and could not have made 250-400 Tojos per month in 42, 300-400 George/Jack per month in 43-45 and 300 Franks per month in 43-45.

So the P-47, at less than 1,200 production in 43-44 (pre-N version) simply can't keep up unitl the P-51 and Corsairs start to come in numbers mid-late 44.

In my experience the FBs and attack bombers can get by with low levels runs against lightly defended troops, but with decent AA in hex, especially in DBB scenarios, but even late patch stock really, the losses are heavy compared to the impact.

With certain CAP settings (low layered CAP) even the P-47 struggles to match Japanese 2nd and 3rd gen fighters, so it's also hard to punch a hole the FB or 2E can get through, but 4E will actually get through to target even in the face of losses. I was happy in that game to lose 300 airframes in a days battle over Rabaul in 43 just to get the fields almost closed and get the defenders worn out so that after a few more turns (of more losses) I would finally have air supremacy.

Historically fighters would have also been there straffing fields, hitting supply dumps, targeting specific logistical support. In game it just doesn't work that way.

What was a typical P-47 pilot's ground attack or strafe skill in your cited game, Obvert? If <70 apiece, do you think that may have had something to do with your observed inefficiency in the ground attack role?

I would venture that few Allied players spend much time training their jug pilots up on these roles to this level. They're probably too busy focusing on "Air" and "Defense". This probably compounds the perception that the game doesn't support the FB role-because of pilot skill in this disparate activity.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Agree with that. Think A2A is the far more important element.

The thing that gets me is in that last set of attacks I posted, Dan used nearly 70 B-29, 250 Liberators, but only 125 or so 2EB. Where are they? Should have them by the bucket and they were MEANT to be used tactically. Using 4-500 of those things would be horrific while the heavies bombed the heck out of AFs, Ports, and Industry.

The more I tend to think about this the better I like it. For over a month now those heavies could have been used to crush Fort construction in Formosa, Okinawa, or the other bases I am feverishly trying to build up. This doesn't include any Industry/Oil attack of which there have been NONE.

Perhaps it is a blessing in some ways but I really, truly dislike it.

You have to see from the Allied side. You have a LOT of non-historical toys, more in this Scenario than even the usual Japanese player.

He could have bombed a lot of places, and possibly should have, but the game is also psychological. Maybe he knew this would rile you up more than the other options. [:D]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

I think if you want to see the airframes used more realistically, then you have to play Scen 1 with PDU off.

As long as the Japanese can crank out a billion fighters a month with exp 70+ pilots thanks to "training" missions in China... the Allies have to counter, and the counter is to use every available airframe for air superiority.

How does Scen 1 PDU off change the ability of the Japanese player to 'train' pilots in China?

[Lowpe]

For strafing to work, the pilot needs strafe skill, but also low ground I believe.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy



I get your suggested point and crsutton's counterpoint. But is this a question of 'inability of the game' or 'just the way things work out'? I've not seen many late war games where Allied players really-o truly-o give ground attack FBs precedence. The P-47s are worth their weight in gold in the air war in most AARs I've seen. I've not seen a convincing Allied effort to separate out the heavier FBs for airfield strafing / rocket attacks as it's usually 'all hands on deck' for capable A2A airframes.

So, until I'm convinced that mass application of Allied FB firepower has been tried and universally recognized as incapable, I really can't say that it's a game 'inability' so much as a supply:demand issue. Most players would probably commit to air superiority and neutralizing the enemy's A2A options, so it kind of makes it their choice for why FBs / ground attack isn't as effective as IRL.

Strafing against ground troops has negligible impact. There are no air launched rockets or napalm in game.

The demand issue is there, yes, but that is specific to the conditions of game, especially PDU-ON and of course non-historical OOB scenarios with the added ability of the player to R & D airframes well ahead of their historical arrival dates.

I self-imposed an HR against 4E ground bombing in my previous Allied game against Greyjoy because I wanted to see what the 2E, FB and some fighters would do. You'll never use the P-47s as they were in the war for many reasons, not the least that the Japanese have a wildy different OOB, service capability and inter-service coordination ability in the air war than they did historically. I play Japan as you know and intimately understand the huge advantages a Japanese player has even in a stock game over historical. Japan did not and could not have made 250-400 Tojos per month in 42, 300-400 George/Jack per month in 43-45 and 300 Franks per month in 43-45.

So the P-47, at less than 1,200 production in 43-44 (pre-N version) simply can't keep up unitl the P-51 and Corsairs start to come in numbers mid-late 44.

In my experience the FBs and attack bombers can get by with low levels runs against lightly defended troops, but with decent AA in hex, especially in DBB scenarios, but even late patch stock really, the losses are heavy compared to the impact.

With certain CAP settings (low layered CAP) even the P-47 struggles to match Japanese 2nd and 3rd gen fighters, so it's also hard to punch a hole the FB or 2E can get through, but 4E will actually get through to target even in the face of losses. I was happy in that game to lose 300 airframes in a days battle over Rabaul in 43 just to get the fields almost closed and get the defenders worn out so that after a few more turns (of more losses) I would finally have air supremacy.

Historically fighters would have also been there straffing fields, hitting supply dumps, targeting specific logistical support. In game it just doesn't work that way.

What was a typical P-47 pilot's ground attack or strafe skill in your cited game, Obvert? If <70 apiece, do you think that may have had something to do with your observed inefficiency in the ground attack role?

I would venture that few Allied players spend much time training their jug pilots up on these roles to this level. They're probably too busy focusing on "Air" and "Defense". This probably compounds the perception that the game doesn't support the FB role-because of pilot skill in this disparate activity.

I never used the P-47 to attack at 100ft in game. That would be silly! [:D]

As I said, strafing is not viable as it was historically.

That said, all fighter for any side I play are trained to strafe as it trains defensive skills. So all of my pilots would have been 70+ in strafing.

Some that were FB pilots also had low ground bombing skills. I used them against small targets with no AA protection. mostly little Japanese Coy and naval guard units. Those they can handle just fine. It's large, well protected units in a defended hex with decent CAP in numbers that are the problem. One of the tactics of the Allies using 2E and FB and F strafers was to come in low to avoid early warning and get the jump on enemy positions. This worked. It does in game. AA is always awake and ready! [:D]

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Agree with that. Think A2A is the far more important element.

The thing that gets me is in that last set of attacks I posted, Dan used nearly 70 B-29, 250 Liberators, but only 125 or so 2EB. Where are they? Should have them by the bucket and they were MEANT to be used tactically. Using 4-500 of those things would be horrific while the heavies bombed the heck out of AFs, Ports, and Industry.

The more I tend to think about this the better I like it. For over a month now those heavies could have been used to crush Fort construction in Formosa, Okinawa, or the other bases I am feverishly trying to build up. This doesn't include any Industry/Oil attack of which there have been NONE.

Perhaps it is a blessing in some ways but I really, truly dislike it.

You have to see from the Allied side. You have a LOT of non-historical toys, more in this Scenario than even the usual Japanese player.

He could have bombed a lot of places, and possibly should have, but the game is also psychological. Maybe he knew this would rile you up more than the other options. [:D]

That, Sir, is an EXCELLENT point. Bet he is going nuts wondering why I fought 'The FINAL Battle.'
[:D]

[MakeeLearn]

It's large, well protected units in a defended hex with decent CAP in numbers that are the problem. One of the tactics of the Allies using 2E and FB and F strafers was to come in low to avoid early warning and get the jump on enemy positions. This worked. It does in game. AA is always awake and ready!

That's why napalm was so desired for ground targets:

" There is no doubt that Napalm has been found by Army Ground and Air Forces to be the most effective weapon we have against well dug-in personnel."

Another tactic was using multi-altitude bombing. Planes at a high or medium altitude would hit the target first, then the low attackers.

[John 3rd]

June 12, 1944
Chicken Responses


My specific questions:
1. Is Puerto Princessa / Palawan still yours? I can't tell.
See current Map attached.

2. What do you think the significance of Panay's fall will be?
Nothing.

3. Are there other central PI bases that have recently fallen?
See Map again.

4. With the fall of Miri and N. Borneo, what do you think he will do as a follow-up? How are you positioning your forces to support your defensive response? Where will your defensive troops be coming from?

Have a Brigade at Kuching with good supply and three support units. Am trying to sneak in a full division to the NW corner of Borneo to hold that AF. If I was Dan I'd roll one or two more steps towards Singapore and/or Palembang.

5. What are your defensive capabilities on Hainan, Formosa, CRB, Haiphong and Hong Kong? Where will reinforcement to these places (if needed) come from?

a. Hainan has an ID and Brigade at each location, plenty of supply and support troops. It is OK.
b. Formosa is looking tougher and tougher. Currently have 3 ID, 3 Brigades, and some TKs plus LOTS of Support units.
c. CRB has the 2nd ID, a Brigade, and several Support units.
d. Hong Kong is vulnerable. Need to fix that. have moved troops to all the major Chinese bases along the coastline.

6. Do you have an actionable plan to extricate troops from theaters that are now-by process of events in the game-meaningless? I think (but don't know because of lack of information) that includes the Solomons, Rabaul, Truk, Southern DEI, Java, the Andaman islands, and Southern Borneo.

a. I have given up any hope on a counter-attack at the southern base of his thrust. Am about to pull about 20 units from Soerbaja including two full strength ID, HQ units, and several CD units. Shipping is concentrating to do this. Loading to begin in 3-4 days.
b. As stated many times the Central/South Pacific Garrisons have been getting pulled back in. Have loaded Combined Fleet and Southern Army Command plus three large Base Forces for Formosa and they are about 1/3 of the way from the Marianas to their goal. Have another 15-20 units in the Marianas to pull out. This will take several runs but they are getting out.
c. The Aleutians are the biggest area I want to draw from. Have three full ID in the western Aleutians as well as several excellent Air HQ. Only way to do that is by moving the Fleet up there to cover the withdrawal. That would be pretty expensive with fuel...

Hope that helps bring a bit of clarity.

[John 3rd]

June 12, 1944
Chicken Responses


My specific questions:
1. Is Puerto Princessa / Palawan still yours? I can't tell.
See current Map attached.

2. What do you think the significance of Panay's fall will be?
Nothing.

3. Are there other central PI bases that have recently fallen?
See Map again.

4. With the fall of Miri and N. Borneo, what do you think he will do as a follow-up? How are you positioning your forces to support your defensive response? Where will your defensive troops be coming from?

Have a Brigade at Kuching with good supply and three support units. Am trying to sneak in a full division to the NW corner of Borneo to hold that AF. If I was Dan I'd roll one or two more steps towards Singapore and/or Palembang.

5. What are your defensive capabilities on Hainan, Formosa, CRB, Haiphong and Hong Kong? Where will reinforcement to these places (if needed) come from?

a. Hainan has an ID and Brigade at each location, plenty of supply and support troops. It is OK.
b. Formosa is looking tougher and tougher. Currently have 3 ID, 3 Brigades, and some TKs plus LOTS of Support units.
c. CRB has the 2nd ID, a Brigade, and several Support units.
d. Hong Kong is vulnerable. Need to fix that. have moved troops to all the major Chinese bases along the coastline.

6. Do you have an actionable plan to extricate troops from theaters that are now-by process of events in the game-meaningless? I think (but don't know because of lack of information) that includes the Solomons, Rabaul, Truk, Southern DEI, Java, the Andaman islands, and Southern Borneo.

a. I have given up any hope on a counter-attack at the southern base of his thrust. Am about to pull about 20 units from Soerbaja including two full strength ID, HQ units, and several CD units. Shipping is concentrating to do this. Loading to begin in 3-4 days.
b. As stated many times the Central/South Pacific Garrisons have been getting pulled back in. Have loaded Combined Fleet and Southern Army Command plus three large Base Forces for Formosa and they are about 1/3 of the way from the Marianas to their goal. Have another 15-20 units in the Marianas to pull out. This will take several runs but they are getting out.
c. The Aleutians are the biggest area I want to draw from. Have three full ID in the western Aleutians as well as several excellent Air HQ. Only way to do that is by moving the Fleet up there to cover the withdrawal. That would be pretty expensive with fuel...

Hope that helps bring a bit of clarity.

[John 3rd]

Here is the Fleet at Daito Shoto. LOOK at those dratted Subs! Have enlisted the Judy and Jill aircrew to attack SS. Currently flying at 4,000 Ft, Max Range, all directions, and ASW @ 50%, Search 20%, and Rest 30%. The Kido Butai hasn't actually been spotted but it is obvious they have moved into the region due to all the SS attacks occurring. Hoping to make Dan look over his shoulder.

May take a risk, due to SS, and move the Fleet away from their base so that they are SEEN. Not sure yet. Other option is to head for the Marianas where I still have a decent cache of fuel (50K) to refuel the Fleet ONCE.




If you look carefully you can see the bases and garrisons being reinforced and/or built up: Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Daito Shoto, etc...

[John 3rd]

Have at it Gents. Am heading to work.

[Lowpe]

I will be the first.[;)]

Formosa is not strongly held with only 3 divisions. If all three divisions are in on hex, then that hex is strongly held.

Not a huge concentration of Allied subs...sometimes that can point to an invasion spot.

Ishigaki looks like low hanging fruit. The island to the east I believe can be built to size 7. The islands around Okinawa can be built to size 6. Take those and boom you are cut in half and will never get anything west of the line back except for subs and plane transported troops.

You are sending a division to Borneo? Isn't that a POW camp now? I guess you might be able to fly it out long range somewhere, but really?


What makes you think the Kuriles are off the invasion list now? Allies are coming thru Luzon to threaten Formosa, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Okinawa, Ishigaki, Daito. Makes sense they also have a northern vector threatening Hokkaido.

What is Soc Trang? A runway 2, port 2? At some point the Allies will realize they don't need to mass everything behind the Deathstar and really accelerate their forward moves.

If you have to understand the huge impact sigint provides the Allies. They in effect know all of your ground troop placements. You have no secrets there.

Why expose the KB? What does that accomplish but remove doubt from the Allies? Save it for when you can hit the invasion forces with a combined land air attack. I hope you have a 1000+ kamikazes ready to move at a minutes notice!

[MakeeLearn]

Have enlisted the Judy and Jill aircrew to attack SS. Currently flying at 4,000 Ft, Max Range, all directions, and ASW @ 50%, Search 20%, and Rest 30%.

Is it best to have them at max range? Is that trading stronger protection for greater distance?

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I will be the first.[;)]

Formosa is not strongly held with only 3 divisions. If all three divisions are in on hex, then that hex is strongly held.

Not a huge concentration of Allied subs...sometimes that can point to an invasion spot.

Ishigaki looks like low hanging fruit. The island to the east I believe can be built to size 7. The islands around Okinawa can be built to size 6. Take those and boom you are cut in half and will never get anything west of the line back except for subs and plane transported troops.

You are sending a division to Borneo? Isn't that a POW camp now? I guess you might be able to fly it out long range somewhere, but really?


What makes you think the Kuriles are off the invasion list now? Allies are coming thru Luzon to threaten Formosa, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Okinawa, Ishigaki, Daito. Makes sense they also have a northern vector threatening Hokkaido.

What is Soc Trang? A runway 2, port 2? At some point the Allies will realize they don't need to mass everything behind the Deathstar and really accelerate their forward moves.

If you have to understand the huge impact sigint provides the Allies. They in effect know all of your ground troop placements. You have no secrets there.

Why expose the KB? What does that accomplish but remove doubt from the Allies? Save it for when you can hit the invasion forces with a combined land air attack. I hope you have a 1000+ kamikazes ready to move at a minutes notice!

That's a lot of questions!!

good questions though [:)]