PBEM from May 42: Mogami-san VS Capt. Ron

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, WOW you really suck in ASW/Submarine warfare. (or your FOW is really good)
However are these submarine torps?
Mk-14,533mm W1,450mm H1,Mk-10,Mk-VIII,,Mk-VIIc, Mk-IX
They have sunk a total of 44 ships.
(not counting the 18in torps which I am certain are air)
and not counting damaged ships. (of which there are many and you know it)

To keep confusion out of it I just quoted USN sub sinkings. Mk 14 and Mk 10 torps are what they use. 450 mm are sub and air launched Dutch torpedoes (and the majority were air kaunched vs your APs off Java. Mk VII, VIIc , and Mk IX are British.

[mogami]

USN Subs lost up to June 1942
Sealion (SS 195) Cavite, 12-25-41 (air attack)
S-27 (SS 132) Amchitka Island, 06-19-42
S-26 (SS 131) Panama, 01-24-42
Perch (SS 176) Java Sea, 03-03-42
S-36 (SS 141) Makassar Strait, 01-20-42
Shark (SS 174) Java, 03-08-42(A)

(The Japanese did not form ASW command till Nov 43)

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

USN Subs lost up to June 1942
Sealion (SS 195) Cavite, 12-25-41 (air attack)
S-27 (SS 132) Amchitka Island, 06-19-42
S-26 (SS 131) Panama, 01-24-42
Perch (SS 176) Java Sea, 03-03-42
S-36 (SS 141) Makassar Strait, 01-20-42
Shark (SS 174) Java, 03-08-42(A)

(The Japanese did not form ASW command till Nov 43)

My point is about the ASW model so only Perch and Shark count. Sealion sunk at Cavite by air attack. S-27 and S-36 ran aground and were subsquently lost. S-26 was rammed by S-21 and sank.

[Ron Saueracker]

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/29/42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Ichang , at 47,33

Japanese aircraft
Ki-30 Ann x 60
Ki-32 Mary x 27
Ki-46-II Dinah x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-30 Ann: 3 damaged
Ki-32 Mary: 2 destroyed

Airbase hits 13
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 73

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Amboina , at 39,73


Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 22


No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
11 casualties reported

Runway hits 4

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Yokosuka 3rd SNLF, at 24,68


Allied aircraft
Wirraway x 13


Allied aircraft losses
Wirraway: 3 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
38 casualties reported
Guns lost 1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 56th Division, at 22,64

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 10
A6M3 Zero x 4

Allied aircraft
Wirraway x 28
CW-21B Demon x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Wirraway: 16 destroyed, 7 damaged
CW-21B Demon: 4 destroyed

Japanese ground losses:
15 casualties reported
Guns lost 3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Zuid Garrison Battalion, at 24,68

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 21
G4M1 Betty x 14

Allied aircraft
Kittyhawk I x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed
G4M1 Betty: 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Kittyhawk I: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged


Allied ground losses:
20 casualties reported
Guns lost 1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[jwilkerson]

Source:

Alden, John D. US Submarine Attacks During World War II, Naval Institute Press, 1989.

Lists 73 sinkings by USN subs ( not including British or Dutch they are listed separately ) though end of May 1942. Alden uses JANAC as one of several primary sources ... and Alden lists EACH source when they disagree ... and disagree they do on about 10% of the attacks ... hence JANAC number is more conservative than Alden maximal number ... though Alden minimal number would be a tiny bit smaller.

But point is from an order of magnitude perspective ... the game isn't producing anything close to historical results .. even though "MOG" claims "RON" is using his boats in an a-historically agressive fashion ( Ron says he isn't ). Would MOG suggest that if Ron were using them in a less agressive fashion that his sinkings would increase by a factor of about 10 ?

[mogami]

Hi, Where does it come down that USN boats were no good early in war? It appears they were quite good.
Does placing ships in convoy with escort make this much difference?
The reason I say Ron has been aggressive is simply because at the start of manu of my orders phase I see a "carpet" of enemy submarines in many places. I then send a "flood" of ASW ships to that area.

But in truth there are many locations where Ron would have better luck (more transports and fewer ASW ships) But I am not about to point them out. My ASW has moved to where his subs are found over and over.

You know what wears me out? Playing a game where every good result obtained by the other player is an example of their being wise and every bad result they suffer is a result of the game being screwed up.

I will post my results as Allied player when Bosun sends the next turn. We are not as far (mid Feb 42) but I have sunk as many IJN boats in that game as Ron has lost USN boats in this game and my submarines are doing well. (I have lost 6 USN boats 3 of them in port to air attack) I have sunk at least as many ships as Ron.

[Ron Saueracker]

You know what wears me out? Playing a game where every good result obtained by the other player is an example of their being wise and every bad result they suffer is a result of the game being screwed up.

Give me a break! What am I, twelve? [8|] What's the point of pulling such crap? I point out examples as they occur, regardless of outcome. My aim here is to highlight problems I've been informing the devs exist since I started testing the beta.

So you put out ASW TFs. These historically would most likely have not reaped the same results as yours because individual depth charges with over a 75% hit rate did not exist, they could not detect subs like either players surface ships can, the nature of historical ASW combat from this period does not accomodate gang bang attacks on subs by however many escorts are in a TF, subs actually evaded tactically.....

It's not that your tactics are unsound based on the WITP model, they are fine. I'm just pointing out that in reality they would not have had an appreciable effect because WITP ASW model has skewed the realities of the assets you are using. Had your subs come anywhere near my escorts I'd be saying the same thing, and have been for two frigging years.

[Ron Saueracker]

I will post my results as Allied player when Bosun sends the next turn. We are not as far (mid Feb 42) but I have sunk as many IJN boats in that game as Ron has lost USN boats in this game and my submarines are doing well. (I have lost 6 USN boats 3 of them in port to air attack) I have sunk at least as many ships as Ron.

So what does this, or should this, tell you?

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Hi, Ron Amid all this talk about ahistoric ASW results for the period why don't you post the total numbar of Japanese ships sunk or damaged by your submarines thus far.
I think it is on the ahistoric side. Way on the high side

I'll check on this...hang on. I know I'm not using my subs over aggressively, unless putting them to sea qualifies. I even have each sub spend a minimum of three weeks in port after a patrol.

Ships sunk by USN submarines as of June 29, 1942 in our game. 8 total. 5 AP, 1 AK, 1 PC, 1 MSW.

Ships sunk according to JANAC by USN submarines up to and including June 42 is 69.

I don't see where I have been overly aggressive. These 69 only include those sinkings confirmed by Japanese records.

So, WITP is contrary to history by approx 800% regarding sinkings.

Sub losses to date in game, all to Japanese surface ship depth charge attacks... 16 including Trigger which won't survive the turn.

Historically, only 2 were lost to surface ship ASW, Perch and Shark. This is another 800% discrepancy.

Any more questions?[;)]

I just had a similar conversation with Chez in email re this. Up to 1 April 1942 USN submarines sank some 300,000 tons of Japanese shipping. That being the case, I'd say Ron's considerably behind the curve. (USN submarines in my PBEM have yet to make even one attack, let alone sink anything, but let's not talk about that. [:D])

[mogami]

Hi, But don't you see. You are saying "WITP does not provide historic USN results dispite the IJN not doing historic actions and no matter how the IJN employs his ships they would be useless."
That sounds like "The game is screrwing me"
DC do not have a 75 percent hit rate. You don't even see attacks that miss out right. Only where they come close.
Your sub that sank the MSW off Rabaul was not hit and there were 12 ASW ships in the hex sent there because the sub was spotted. The sub scored the kill not the ASW.
The sub that was hit the next day was in a hex where 4 ASW TF were sent (24 Ships) and it evaded multiple attacks before being hit.

You want your 69 Japanese ships for 2 subs no matter what has changed between the historic sinkings and the game. You attribute the decline in sinking and rise in sub loss solely to "mega" DC

I say the decline in sinking is a result of my seeing your submarines and avoiding them with unescorted ships and sending massive ASW. And to your continuing to deploy them where Japanese ASW is heavy. For 6 months Japanese ships have been moving in unescorted or lightly escorted TF. Hundreds of trips without meeting a single USN submarine. I have been able to strip ASW from one location and send it to where your boats are. They are easy to find. They are sent where you think they will encounter Japanese warships. (and when they do you scream about them being sunk)

Listen, I don't think the game owes you historic results unless BOTH sides play historicaly.
The game does not owe you 69 Japanese ships. If the other guy does not send 4 CV to Midway with advance notice provided by intell the game does not owe you 4 IJN CV. If the Japanese don't respond to a USMC landing by sending 800 IJA troops the game does not owe you 800 dead Japanese.
If the Japanese do not send unescorted bombers to Rangoon the game does not owe the AVG 500 kills.
Results are produced by the actions of the players. When you learn maybe the historic use of submarines early in the war does not produce historic results IF the Japanese change their behaviour and you need a new manner of using your submarines.

In any case I just want to play the game. Rant on, I will learn to change my behaviour and stay out of your rants.

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Hi, Ron Amid all this talk about ahistoric ASW results for the period why don't you post the total numbar of Japanese ships sunk or damaged by your submarines thus far.
I think it is on the ahistoric side. Way on the high side

I'll check on this...hang on. I know I'm not using my subs over aggressively, unless putting them to sea qualifies. I even have each sub spend a minimum of three weeks in port after a patrol.

Ships sunk by USN submarines as of June 29, 1942 in our game. 8 total. 5 AP, 1 AK, 1 PC, 1 MSW.

Ships sunk according to JANAC by USN submarines up to and including June 42 is 69.

I don't see where I have been overly aggressive. These 69 only include those sinkings confirmed by Japanese records.

So, WITP is contrary to history by approx 800% regarding sinkings.

Sub losses to date in game, all to Japanese surface ship depth charge attacks... 16 including Trigger which won't survive the turn.

Historically, only 2 were lost to surface ship ASW, Perch and Shark. This is another 800% discrepancy.

Any more questions?[;)]

I just had a similar conversation with Chez in email re this. Up to 1 April 1942 USN submarines sank some 300,000 tons of Japanese shipping. That being the case, I'd say Ron's considerably behind the curve. (USN submarines in my PBEM have yet to make even one attack, let alone sink anything, but let's not talk about that. [:D])

Hi, Look at the tonnage Japanese submarines sank in the same period. (I think it was over 3x as much)
When you posted your settings before starting I think I suggested turning off submarine doctrine.
I think I am on record as being against submarine doctrines in general going back to UV.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker



I'll check on this...hang on. I know I'm not using my subs over aggressively, unless putting them to sea qualifies. I even have each sub spend a minimum of three weeks in port after a patrol.

Ships sunk by USN submarines as of June 29, 1942 in our game. 8 total. 5 AP, 1 AK, 1 PC, 1 MSW.

Ships sunk according to JANAC by USN submarines up to and including June 42 is 69.

I don't see where I have been overly aggressive. These 69 only include those sinkings confirmed by Japanese records.

So, WITP is contrary to history by approx 800% regarding sinkings.

Sub losses to date in game, all to Japanese surface ship depth charge attacks... 16 including Trigger which won't survive the turn.

Historically, only 2 were lost to surface ship ASW, Perch and Shark. This is another 800% discrepancy.

Any more questions?[;)]

I just had a similar conversation with Chez in email re this. Up to 1 April 1942 USN submarines sank some 300,000 tons of Japanese shipping. That being the case, I'd say Ron's considerably behind the curve. (USN submarines in my PBEM have yet to make even one attack, let alone sink anything, but let's not talk about that. [:D])

Hi, Look at the tonnage Japanese submarines sank in the same period. (I think it was over 3x as much)
When you posted your settings before starting I think I suggested turning off submarine doctrine.
I think I am on record as being against submarine doctrines in general going back to UV.

I wish I'd read that. Had I known what it was about I certainly would not have gone that way. Live and learn. [:)]

Re Japanese tonnage-sunk figures: what has that to do with my reply earlier re USN tonnage-sunk figures?

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker



I'll check on this...hang on. I know I'm not using my subs over aggressively, unless putting them to sea qualifies. I even have each sub spend a minimum of three weeks in port after a patrol.

Ships sunk by USN submarines as of June 29, 1942 in our game. 8 total. 5 AP, 1 AK, 1 PC, 1 MSW.

Ships sunk according to JANAC by USN submarines up to and including June 42 is 69.

I don't see where I have been overly aggressive. These 69 only include those sinkings confirmed by Japanese records.

So, WITP is contrary to history by approx 800% regarding sinkings.

Sub losses to date in game, all to Japanese surface ship depth charge attacks... 16 including Trigger which won't survive the turn.

Historically, only 2 were lost to surface ship ASW, Perch and Shark. This is another 800% discrepancy.

Any more questions?[;)]

I just had a similar conversation with Chez in email re this. Up to 1 April 1942 USN submarines sank some 300,000 tons of Japanese shipping. That being the case, I'd say Ron's considerably behind the curve. (USN submarines in my PBEM have yet to make even one attack, let alone sink anything, but let's not talk about that. [:D])

Hi, Look at the tonnage Japanese submarines sank in the same period. (I think it was over 3x as much)
When you posted your settings before starting I think I suggested turning off submarine doctrine.
I think I am on record as being against submarine doctrines in general going back to UV.

I went back to the top of our game's thread and looked. You posted no such warning to us. Shame on you!

[mogami]

Hi, No it was in the opponents wanted thread. After Chez posted the settings.
But I looked and I didn't post a warning. I might have been planning on it (or it might be where the forum crashes when I post) Or I might have just snickered and thought "You'll be sorry"
But I have posted my opinion on sub doctrines many times.

I can imagine the howels I would have gotten from Ron had I used a "Hirohito" plan or employed IJN submarines on Allied shipping lanes.

You can point to USN failings in WITP all you want but how many Japanese players sink 2 USN CV in 1942?

If the USN sank 69 ships then I would guess the Japanese could have sank 210 had they bothered to try.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, But don't you see. You are saying "WITP does not provide historic USN results dispite the IJN not doing historic actions and no matter how the IJN employs his ships they would be useless."
That sounds like "The game is screrwing me"
DC do not have a 75 percent hit rate. You don't even see attacks that miss out right. Only where they come close.
Your sub that sank the MSW off Rabaul was not hit and there were 12 ASW ships in the hex sent there because the sub was spotted. The sub scored the kill not the ASW.
The sub that was hit the next day was in a hex where 4 ASW TF were sent (24 Ships) and it evaded multiple attacks before being hit.

You want your 69 Japanese ships for 2 subs no matter what has changed between the historic sinkings and the game. You attribute the decline in sinking and rise in sub loss solely to "mega" DC

I say the decline in sinking is a result of my seeing your submarines and avoiding them with unescorted ships and sending massive ASW. And to your continuing to deploy them where Japanese ASW is heavy. For 6 months Japanese ships have been moving in unescorted or lightly escorted TF. Hundreds of trips without meeting a single USN submarine. I have been able to strip ASW from one location and send it to where your boats are. They are easy to find. They are sent where you think they will encounter Japanese warships. (and when they do you scream about them being sunk)

Listen, I don't think the game owes you historic results unless BOTH sides play historicaly.
The game does not owe you 69 Japanese ships. If the other guy does not send 4 CV to Midway with advance notice provided by intell the game does not owe you 4 IJN CV. If the Japanese don't respond to a USMC landing by sending 800 IJA troops the game does not owe you 800 dead Japanese.
If the Japanese do not send unescorted bombers to Rangoon the game does not owe the AVG 500 kills.
Results are produced by the actions of the players. When you learn maybe the historic use of submarines early in the war does not produce historic results IF the Japanese change their behaviour and you need a new manner of using your submarines.

In any case I just want to play the game. Rant on, I will learn to change my behaviour and stay out of your rants.

Hi, But don't you see. You are saying "WITP does not provide historic USN results dispite the IJN not doing historic actions and no matter how the IJN employs his ships they would be useless."

No, I'm saying that the assets you are employing are not anywhere near those available to the same commanders historically. The ones you have carry overly accurate ASW (weapons have the accuracy of 2nd generation guided missiles and ships can detect subs more frequently than subs do ships, despite any evidence pointing to this and overwhelming evidence denying it) equipment and weapons and the game mechanics over emphasize surface group capability and marginalize that of the sub (for example, all escorts get to attack sub, sometimes multiple times in optimal circumstances during same combat phase, yet subs get one shot vs one target if they make a successful attack role, but never fire torps defensively).

DC do not have a 75 percent hit rate. You don't even see attacks that miss out right. Only where they come close.

I've posted this before. Yes individual DCs have at least a 75% hit rate. The only ships that actually fire (expend ammo) are those one sees actually dropping DCs. The ones that don't failed the attack check and have not expended DC according to ammo states. I know the game modelled individual DCs and these were the hit %s they get because I was the guy who changed the ammo to have the individual DC represent multiple expenditures from each weapon to form patters. Don't believe everything you are told.[;)]

Your sub that sank the MSW off Rabaul was not hit and there were 12 ASW ships in the hex sent there because the sub was spotted. The sub scored the kill not the ASW. The sub that was hit the next day was in a hex where 4 ASW TF were sent (24 Ships) and it evaded multiple attacks before being hit.

Notice that three times out of four the ASW TF spotted the sub first? Subs don't seem to have the ability to evade in this model. Subs were hardly deaf, dumb, blind and suicidal.

You want your 69 Japanese ships for 2 subs no matter what has changed between the historic sinkings and the game. You attribute the decline in sinking and rise in sub loss solely to "mega" DC

I say the decline in sinking is a result of my seeing your submarines and avoiding them with unescorted ships and sending massive ASW. And to your continuing to deploy them where Japanese ASW is heavy. For 6 months Japanese ships have been moving in unescorted or lightly escorted TF. Hundreds of trips without meeting a single USN submarine. I have been able to strip ASW from one location and send it to where your boats are. They are easy to find. They are sent where you think they will encounter Japanese warships. (and when they do you scream about them being sunk)

Subs are too easily detected. These subs you are spotting. Can you spot enough of them? What, are they all on the surface during daylight sunning themselves in a combat zone? Subs operated submerged in their patrol zones during daylight for the most part, at least until the advent of SD radar to warn of air attack, and relied on scheduled periscope sweeps (they would come to 65 feet, have a look and go to over 100" again) and passive sound observance to warn of potential surface targets. They surfaced at night to charge batteries from having run submerged all day. When on the surface, again the sub should have the advantage of lower detection rating. Seems they do not.

All of this works against the sub. They get detected too often, from the air despite they are supposed to be submerged and from the surface despite their reduced silouette. They only get to fire once, yet all defenders get a crack. The aimed torpedoes have a lower accuracy than unaimed ash cans. In every encounter, the sub is subjected to counter attack and to top it off, the sub can't fire torps at the attackers.

And how far out should I place my subs? Some are 1000 miles off nearest coast yet are getting pounced on by ASW TFs based on overly accurate sighting reports and their ability to travel 6 hexes at full speed yet still find the time to search a sixty mile hex, detect and attack a sub before it knows what's happening. If I go any farther off one coast I'm getting too close to another. I've got subs off Gilberts and Marshalls, in the Mariannas, in Java Sea, in the South China Sea, in the Indian Ocean, off Japan, in Formosa Strait, in the banda Sea, even in the Kurile Islands. I'm not just in Japanese home waters.

This will happen to you as well if you try to interdict shipping. No place to hide.

[Ron Saueracker]

June 29th got lost in the trench warfare over ASW and other issues. Not much happened, at least when compared to today.

Mogami lands troops on Tassaforonga to root out the orphaned defenders of Lunga, trapped there since April. I was hoping he'd leave them alone a little longer as I was about to temporarily base a squadron of PBYs there for a few days for a peekee boo op.

In China, Mogami continues his intermittent raids, seemingly prepping Ichang and Changsha for a visit by the little arrogants. Ichang is defenceless from the air but the AVG showed up in Changsha and made their presence felt against defenceless bombers.

Here again is an excellent example of the CAP vs Multiple LCU/TF in same hex issue. Mogami's strike targets 5 LCUs so automatically the missions from his airbase go in like uncoordinated missions, simply because the game mechanics have placed the target selection by these bombers before the CAP phase, which always means strikes of this type are denied any chance at coordinated status, instead of after the CAP phase, like when bombers select ship targets in a TF. His bombers had to endure 5 CAP intercepts instead of one if the mission had been able to coordinate.

The drama on Bali, while small in scale compared with the big battles, continues to play out. I believe yesterday was another day where the defenders repulsed yet another shock attack, this time after Mogami dropped some airborne nippers (suffering heavily at the hands of LRCap and flak if one can believe the FOW reports.

100,000 IJA troops entered Soerabaja today and immediately shock attacked. They were thrown back.

In Burma, the action is heating up as Mogami builds up for an attempt on Tavoy. His air attack is met by the blokes of 605 Sqdn and the Hurricanes hold their own vs heavy odds, downing 8 planes.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/30/42


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Guns at Tassafaronga, 66,97, firing at TF 18
TF 18 troops unloading over beach at Tassafaronga, 66,97


14 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese ground losses:
289 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Guns at Tassafaronga, 66,97, firing at TF 18
TF 18 troops unloading over beach at Tassafaronga, 66,97


2 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese ground losses:
168 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Ichang , at 47,33

Japanese aircraft
Ki-30 Ann x 55
Ki-32 Mary x 26
Ki-46-II Dinah x 3

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-30 Ann: 2 destroyed
Ki-32 Mary: 2 destroyed, 3 damaged

Allied aircraft losses


Allied ground losses:
10 casualties reported

Airbase hits 6
Airbase supply hits 3
Runway hits 75

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Amboina , at 39,73


Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 18


No Allied losses

Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 5


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 18th Division, at 22,65


Allied aircraft
Martin 139 x 9
Hudson I x 10
Beaufort V-IX x 8
P-40E Warhawk x 4


No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
67 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 56th Division, at 22,65


Allied aircraft
Kittyhawk I x 7
Martin 139 x 15
Hudson I x 17
Beaufort V-IX x 15


No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
82 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 3rd Base Force, at 24,68


Allied aircraft
Wirraway x 11
Brewster 339D x 2


Allied aircraft losses
Wirraway: 3 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
7 casualties reported


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 77th Chinese Corps, at 47,36

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21 Sally x 36
Ki-46-II Dinah x 1

Allied aircraft
P-40B Tomahawk x 19
P-40E Warhawk x 20

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21 Sally: 11 destroyed, 15 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-40B Tomahawk: 2 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 4 damaged


Allied ground losses:
56 casualties reported
Guns lost 1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 5th Chinese Cavalry Corps, at 47,36

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21 Sally x 11
Ki-46-II Dinah x 1

Allied aircraft
P-40B Tomahawk x 19
P-40E Warhawk x 20

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21 Sally: 9 destroyed, 1 damaged
Ki-46-II Dinah: 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-40B Tomahawk: 1 damaged


Allied ground losses:
18 casualties reported


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 51st Chinese Corps, at 47,36

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21 Sally x 15
Ki-48 Lily x 19
Ki-46-II Dinah x 2

Allied aircraft
P-40B Tomahawk x 19
P-40E Warhawk x 20

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21 Sally: 2 destroyed, 5 damaged
Ki-48 Lily: 13 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 1 damaged


Allied ground losses:
45 casualties reported


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 57th Chinese Corps, at 47,36

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21 Sally x 14
Ki-46-II Dinah x 1

Allied aircraft
P-40B Tomahawk x 19
P-40E Warhawk x 20

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21 Sally: 14 destroyed, 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 2 damaged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 89th Chinese Corps, at 47,36

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21 Sally x 10
Ki-46-II Dinah x 1

Allied aircraft
P-40B Tomahawk x 19
P-40E Warhawk x 20

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21 Sally: 2 destroyed, 4 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-40B Tomahawk: 2 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 1 damaged


Allied ground losses:
10 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 1st Burma Brigade, at 28,37

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 21
Ki-27 Nate x 7
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 5
Ki-21 Sally x 69
Ki-49 Helen x 22

Allied aircraft
Hurricane II x 13

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 4 destroyed
Ki-27 Nate: 2 destroyed
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 6 destroyed
Ki-21 Sally: 2 destroyed, 3 damaged
Ki-49 Helen: 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Hurricane II: 9 destroyed, 6 damaged


Allied ground losses:
10 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Zuid Garrison Battalion, at 24,68

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 20
G4M1 Betty x 9

Allied aircraft
Brewster 339D x 6

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Brewster 339D: 4 destroyed


Allied ground losses:
8 casualties reported


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Macassar , at 30,69


Allied aircraft
B-25C Mitchell x 18


No Allied losses

Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Soerabaja

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 88645 troops, 677 guns, 10 vehicles

Defending force 23125 troops, 163 guns, 151 vehicles

Japanese assault odds: 0 to 1 (fort level 7)


Japanese ground losses:
2318 casualties reported
Guns lost 76
Vehicles lost 4

Allied ground losses:
407 casualties reported
Guns lost 11
Vehicles lost 1

[Ron Saueracker]

I can imagine the howels I would have gotten from Ron had I used a "Hirohito" plan or employed IJN submarines on Allied shipping lanes.

Why would I howl?[&o] I'm highlighting problems with the game. If you want to go after merchants, that is a players choice since this is supposed to be a game based on these levels of command.

Everyone associated with this product think I'm some kind of freak who is never satisfied and just complains for the hell of it. If that's the only defence you've got for not addressing key issues, then, that's just sad.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, No it was in the opponents wanted thread. After Chez posted the settings.
But I looked and I didn't post a warning. I might have been planning on it (or it might be where the forum crashes when I post) Or I might have just snickered and thought "You'll be sorry"
But I have posted my opinion on sub doctrines many times.

I can imagine the howels I would have gotten from Ron had I used a "Hirohito" plan or employed IJN submarines on Allied shipping lanes.

You can point to USN failings in WITP all you want but how many Japanese players sink 2 USN CV in 1942?

If the USN sank 69 ships then I would guess the Japanese could have sank 210 had they bothered to try.

I was just kidding you. [:)]

I don't like these new smileys. Another bad decision! [:D]

If I can say something wityout you going off the deep end: you tend to look at everything WitP related 1) defensively if it's criticism and 2) from a game point of view, not an historical one. And comments like "if the Japanese had tried" are hardly helpful. Stick with known facts, or at least data that's documented somewhere by some source reasonably respected.

As they say, just my $.02.

[Ron Saueracker]

You can point to USN failings in WITP all you want but how many Japanese players sink 2 USN CV in 1942?

This is exactly the problem. I'm not a fanboy and I don't need to win or I throw a fit. Why don't we see USN CVs getting sunk outright by I boats? Because subs in general are too vulnerable!

[Ron Saueracker]

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 07/01/42

The Battles for Soerabaja, Tavoy, and Tassaforonga continue. The Spitfire Vs debut over Tavoy was by no means spectacular![:)]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 16th Division, at 22,65

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 10
A6M3 Zero x 4

Allied aircraft
Wirraway x 22
Kittyhawk I x 7
Martin 139 x 14
Hudson I x 12
Beaufort V-IX x 20
P-39D Airacobra x 12
P-40E Warhawk x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 damaged
A6M3 Zero: 10 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Wirraway: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged
Kittyhawk I: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged
Martin 139: 4 destroyed
Hudson I: 2 destroyed
Beaufort V-IX: 7 destroyed, 1 damaged
P-39D Airacobra: 14 destroyed, 1 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
118 casualties reported
Guns lost 3


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 65th Brigade, at 22,65

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 10
A6M3 Zero x 2

Allied aircraft
Wirraway x 2
Martin 139 x 9
Hudson I x 7
Beaufort V-IX x 8
P-39D Airacobra x 2

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Wirraway: 2 destroyed
Martin 139: 2 destroyed
Hudson I: 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
44 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 200th Chinese Division, at 28,37

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 20
Ki-27 Nate x 6
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 5
Ki-21 Sally x 40
Ki-49 Helen x 9

Allied aircraft
Hurricane II x 6
Spitfire Vb x 13

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-27 Nate: 3 destroyed
Ki-21 Sally: 3 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Hurricane II: 6 destroyed
Spitfire Vb: 8 destroyed, 2 damaged


Allied ground losses:
49 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Tassafaronga

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 2721 troops, 13 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 4087 troops, 38 guns, 1 vehicles

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


Japanese ground losses:
246 casualties reported
Guns lost 7

Allied ground losses:
12 casualties reported
Guns lost 1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Tavoy

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 14478 troops, 148 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 56841 troops, 429 guns, 262 vehicles



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Soerabaja

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 8996 troops, 113 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 112056 troops, 714 guns, 5 vehicles


Japanese ground losses:
84 casualties reported
Guns lost 4


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Tassafaronga

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 2323 troops, 22 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 1945 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles






The forces facing off at Soerbaja. Don't let values fool you as this pick was taken during the combat phase and the numbers were fluctuating all over the place during bombardments. What is left of the 2nd Div IJA is at Malang, most likely out of supply and brutalized by repeated shock attacks over a month ago with 30:1 plus odds but the current superhero status of Japanese troops prevents me from destroying them. So what if their morale is high, they have no ammo, food and my troops are poking them through with bayonets. [8|][&:] This could use some rethinking as well, no?[8|]