surviving the heavies

[Feinder]

I've never been able to understand why every Japanese player seems to think they should be able to run willy-nilly thru the Pacic until 1943.

Hm.

Japanese player captures Singapore in Janary, fully a month ahead of the historical time-table.
Japanese player captures Manilla in February, two months ahead of the histroical time-table.
Japanese player captures Burma in February, fully two months ahead of the historical time-table.
Japanese player captures Port Moresby in January, fully... Oops, that never happened.
Japanese player captures Midway in March, fully... Oops, that never happened.
Japanese player captures Canton Island in January... Oops, that never happend either.
Japanese player captures Noumea in March... Gawd, where is the "history" coming from?
Japanese player conqures China in July... I'm not finding that in the book either.
Japanese player invades India... Nope, still looking for that one too...
Japanese player captures the Hawiian Islands in March... Glad that one didn't happen either.

Allied player demolishes Rangoon with 4e bombers.

And you're upset because...?

[8|]

-F-

[Nikademus]

I fail to see how talking about the heavies and bombers in general is suddenly equated with the Japanese player running willy nilly through the Pacific. In the case of "too many 4E's" this is nothing but historical fact. In the case of blasting airbases....it works both ways for both sides. Since bomber loads favor the Allied side, the ability to blast bases 24/7 from low altitude is a major advantage for the Allies. I should know....i'm in 4/43 and all but one outer bases are being blasted daily by mass hordes of Allied bombers at low altitude....all without nary a loss to them.

[AmiralLaurent]

My method is to use concentration and never, repeat never, ground AC in range of Allied AC. Flying 90% CAP means fatigue will remain between 5 and 10 and that is OK for flying every king of mission, including long-range escort.

Then I have main bases (Rangoon in Burma, Kendari in DEI), that can only be reached by unescorted bombers and have 100-200 fighters at 90% CAP, 300+ AV, 1-2 AA Bns, an air HQ, 100+ engineers and 50 000+ supplies. They are capable to deal with raids of 125 B-17E. Some will get trough and bomb but damage are repaired in some hours and the losses are bigger on the Allied side than on the Japanese side.

By the way I am finding Nates more efficient than Oscars Ib against heavies... Using IJAAF units is a good thing because they engage first, and will suffer the most losses, but you have both the pilots and the AC to replace them, then the Zero units will attack tired Allied crews and damaged bombers and shot tens of them.
Each of my main base has 1 Oscar unit, 1 Nate unit and 4 Daitais of Zeroes.

The rest of the Japanese bases in the area are defended by AA and bad weather. All airfield are occupied by recon units flying 80% naval search + recon, that usually means that no AC is on the ground and Allied raids hit almost nothing, at least ops and AA losses are far heavier than ground Japanese losses. Then from time to time 50 Zeroes will move north to lay an ambush or fly a sweep over a weakly defended Allied base, chasing Buffaloes, Mohawks and so on...

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

I've never been able to understand why every Japanese player seems to think they should be able to run willy-nilly thru the Pacic until 1943.

Hm.

Japanese player captures Singapore in Janary, fully a month ahead of the historical time-table.
Japanese player captures Manilla in February, two months ahead of the histroical time-table.
Japanese player captures Burma in February, fully two months ahead of the historical time-table.
Japanese player captures Port Moresby in January, fully... Oops, that never happened.
Japanese player captures Midway in March, fully... Oops, that never happened.
Japanese player captures Canton Island in January... Oops, that never happend either.
Japanese player captures Noumea in March... Gawd, where is the "history" coming from?
Japanese player conqures China in July... I'm not finding that in the book either.
Japanese player invades India... Nope, still looking for that one too...
Japanese player captures the Hawiian Islands in March... Glad that one didn't happen either.

Allied player demolishes Rangoon with 4e bombers.

And you're upset because...?

[8|]

-F-

[:D]
[:D]
[:D]

[Nikademus]

yes, pretty much my strategy for pre 5.0 games - concentrated CAP beyond effective fighter escort range.....and leave the airbases in range empty save for recon forces. I also built up all the level 4 capable airfields so that my opponent can't concentrate all his bombers on one airbase and keep it shut down. If an invasion comes...i'll have airpower available that can choose from multiple launching points to assist my ground forces.

One exception is PM in a current game. Its within fighter escort range but i have so many fighters there that i can bloody him something good. Sometimes i would move in a big bomber force and stage a quick counter attack. I've nailed a good number of fighters and bombers on the ground that way. Course now that we are in mid 43 there's not much point.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I fail to see how talking about the heavies and bombers in general is suddenly equated with the Japanese player running willy nilly through the Pacific. In the case of "too many 4E's" this is nothing but historical fact. In the case of blasting airbases....it works both ways for both sides. Since bomber loads favor the Allied side, the ability to blast bases 24/7 from low altitude is a major advantage for the Allies. I should know....i'm in 4/43 and all but one outer bases are being blasted daily by mass hordes of Allied bombers at low altitude....all without nary a loss to them.

...not exactly ahistorical is it, however. [;)]

[jolly_pillager]

I disagree that I should not be allowed to base B-17's in India for the fact that I paid the PP costs to transfer them to SEAC.

IMO the whole point of the PP system is to model the political capital I (as CinC PTO) would have to expend to convince FDR/the Pentagon that my plan to base heavy bombers in India to safegaurd it against invasion is a better idea than leaving them to cover Hawaii or the West Coast.

s far as their effectiveness is concerned, what is apparantly being ignored here is the damage that they took in that raid. Did no one notice that nearly EVERY bomber on that mission came home with holes in it? Also the morale of those three groups went from the mid fifties into the high teens afterwards.

Also in response to Nik...these 3 groups represent my ENTIRE inventory of 4E bombers (minus the 13 B-17C's that escaped from the PI)...surely you are not saying that the US didn't have 96 B-17's and 48 Liberators in the entire PTO at the end of January 1942? The difference is that I have chosen to mass them in a descisive place (and spent the PP's to make it "legit" even though CentPac is not a restricted HQ). This is no different at all from the Japanese players changing what they from what was historically done...e.g. Alfrake has stationed large numbers of Japanese submarines in my shipping lanes as commerce raiders, not something the Japanese Navy would actually have done.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

...not exactly ahistorical is it, however. [;)]

actually...it is, because its too fast, too bloodless and too easy.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

...not exactly ahistorical is it, however. [;)]

actually...it is, because its too fast, too bloodless and too easy.

P-38s got a 10 to 1 kill ratio in 1943 IIRC.

In any case, there is far more 'too fast', 'too bloodless' and 'too easy' on the Japanese side of the game it seems to me, as Feinder neatly points out. There is plenty the Japs can do and often do which was outright impossible IRL.

Like the conquest of China, utterly, utterly ridiculous.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: jolly_pillager

Also in response to Nik...these 3 groups represent my ENTIRE inventory of 4E bombers (minus the 13 B-17C's that escaped from the PI)...surely you are not saying that the US didn't have 96 B-17's and 48 Liberators in the entire PTO at the end of January 1942?

without going into Fortress Against the Sun, about 195 B-17E's served in the Pacific in 42. However as Frag pointed out recently, this number represented a total commitment, not an availability. There is also the need for a proper logistcal setup to support large numbers of heavies which didn't exist in India or Oz in early 42. B-17 replacements into the Pacific theater were a mere trickle and often couldn't keep up with attrition mostly caused by wear and tear. In my mod, i simply reduced B-17 rates to compy with the actual numbers that served there, in trickle fashion. This doesn't stop the Allied player from massing them.....it just takes him alot longer to mass them, hence, no 1/42 mass 4E raids on multiple points on the map which is totally unrealistic

[niceguy2005]

I think India was bottom of the food chain partly because it wasn't really of much interest to Japan. If the allies historically faced the same situation as WiTP,i.e. it is the only way to get Brittish reinforcements it would have been a different story.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: jolly_pillager

I disagree that I should not be allowed to base B-17's in India for the fact that I paid the PP costs to transfer them to SEAC.

IMO the whole point of the PP system is to model the political capital I (as CinC PTO) would have to expend to convince FDR/the Pentagon that my plan to base heavy bombers in India to safegaurd it against invasion is a better idea than leaving them to cover Hawaii or the West Coast.

s far as their effectiveness is concerned, what is apparantly being ignored here is the damage that they took in that raid. Did no one notice that nearly EVERY bomber on that mission came home with holes in it? Also the morale of those three groups went from the mid fifties into the high teens afterwards.

Also in response to Nik...these 3 groups represent my ENTIRE inventory of 4E bombers (minus the 13 B-17C's that escaped from the PI)...surely you are not saying that the US didn't have 96 B-17's and 48 Liberators in the entire PTO at the end of January 1942? The difference is that I have chosen to mass them in a descisive place (and spent the PP's to make it "legit" even though CentPac is not a restricted HQ). This is no different at all from the Japanese players changing what they from what was historically done...e.g. Alfrake has stationed large numbers of Japanese submarines in my shipping lanes as commerce raiders, not something the Japanese Navy would actually have done.

AGREE 100%. Ever since arriving on this forum i have the Jap Fanboys whine endlessly about the 4Es. That's because its the only thing that really can cause them much damage in '42.

If realism is what we're concerned about here there should be a hard coded rule that no base anywhere can be attacked unless preparation levels for the units are involved are at least at 25 points. The Japs running around and invading all these bases with nearly no preparation is ridiculous. It's like they all got on a boat and said. "Where should we invade todays boy Karachi or Palembang."

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

P-38s got a 10 to 1 kill ratio in 1943 IIRC.

In any case, there is far more 'too fast', 'too bloodless' and 'too easy' on the Japanese side of the game it seems to me, as Feinder neatly points out. There is plenty the Japs can do and often do which was outright impossible IRL.

Like the conquest of China, utterly, utterly ridiculous.

No offense, but your post is a prime example of why these discussions careen out of control and polarize around US vs Japan bullshit.

Why are we suddenly mentioning estimated P-38 kill raitos in 43? why are we suddenly talking about China? What do these have to do with discussing "surviving the heavies" Why is discussing the heavies suddenly an exercise in "Japanese fanboy-ism? When i said, "Too fast, too easy and too unbloodly" i was referring to the bases themselves and their ability to defend themselves (either side). A player.....both Japanese or Allied, can only defend a base against mass bomber attack at low altitude with equally massive numbers of fighters. Have i mentioned lately that i'm saying both Japanese and Allied? Historically the Americans were able to shut down Japanese airbases through a concentrated and sustained attritional battle. However this does not equate to a 1 or 2 day 6000 foot attack, forcing the defending player to evac the base before his air forces are even atritted.

I'm not picking on B-17's, or 4E's in general, or trying to make it "easier" for the Japan player. For this thread i don't give a whit about any other issue...(china) i'm just discussing bomber vs base interactions for both sides.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

I think India was bottom of the food chain partly because it wasn't really of much interest to Japan. If the allies historically faced the same situation as WiTP,i.e. it is the only way to get Brittish reinforcements it would have been a different story.

I would disagree with that because at the time, the UK couldn't have known about the politics going on at the time within Imperial GHQ. Also, the issue of an Indian adventure didn't die a stillborn death till around 3/42. Up to that point India was still a potential target and the UK were very anxious about it. However they were also heavily committed in Africa at the time and were hard pressed to meet the threat.

That leaves the US which were loath to commit troops or assets to a theater they didn't feel was vital to their own plans for dealing with Japan. I'm not saying it should be house ruled unless both players agree to it. WitP is after all, all about exploring possibilities. I do wish however that av-points worked a little differently. Basing support on the number of engines would go a long way towards placing a neutral govenor on how bombers can be both massed and deployed.

[jolly_pillager]

I can agree with that...a number of mechanics equal to the number of engines would not be unrealistic IMO.

[Nikademus]

yes....its rather easy to mass bombers (of any type) as well as fighters at one base and create gestault raids. Av point ratio to repair is also rather lax i've found. Lastly, I dislike the 250av point cap. (yikes....I thought i was a "company man!" [;)]

Yikes...just processed a turn....my last fighter bastion on the outside perimeter just got obliterated. over 180 heavies + 100 fighters. 60 planes lost in the air....110 destroyed on the ground (typical 6000 foot attack) no losses caused by AA.

[niceguy2005]

YEs, but what would have happened had the Japanese actually attacked India? Would the US and UK simply left it to them? Would that have been strategically wise?

I agree that it is clear the US would have been loathe to commit troops half a world away when they were concerned still about defending the west coast. However, such rapid advances by the Japanese are also gamey. There is no regrouping, planning or suppression of native population that really in WitP, as there was for the Japanese in real life.

SO, if the Japanese are going to go all out after India, the only response the allies could have is to reinforce with other allied units, something I think the US would have done if it was clear that most of Imperial Japans assets were aimed at India and Churchills back was to the wall. I don't think FDR would hesitate to send in heavy reinforcements, including air or ground.

[tabpub]

A sequence of events that shows the trend in air warfare in Burma in Jan.’43.
Granted, that we aren’t talking ’42 anymore though, but I have restrained myself from doing the “bomber mass”. Right now, there are 2 American BG(H), 1 FS in Dacca and 2 American BG(M), 1 FG in Akyab. The rest of the planes in theater are British, who are just getting Lib VI planes, enough to equip 2 squadrons.
All other bomb groups are assigned to their original theaters; although I do let myself temporarily attach groups to neighboring commands, ala CentPac to SouPac, during lulls in one sector.

Akyab was recaptured months ago and has weathered some attacks and bombardments, one cost ¼ of the English fleet one night trying to stop it. But, I waited for the next Japanese major effort over Akyab; it came on the 14th:

01/14/43
Day Air attack on Akyab , at 30,29
Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 28
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 59
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 69
Ki-21 Sally x 47
Allied aircraft
Hurricane II x 29
Spitfire Vb x 34
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 18 destroyed
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 30 destroyed
Ki-61 KAIc Tony: 10 destroyed, 5 damaged
Ki-21 Sally: 6 destroyed, 9 damaged
Allied aircraft losses
Hurricane II: 23 destroyed
Spitfire Vb: 21 destroyed
B-25C Mitchell: 3 destroyed
Catalina I: 1 destroyed
Beaufort I: 1 destroyed
Allied ground losses:
18 casualties reported
Guns lost 1
Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 12
Aircraft Attacking:
Ki-21 Sally bombing at 8000 feet
Lots of carnage in the skies, and plenty of damaged planes; noted that Rangoon was originating base, set the counterattack in place. Weather delayed it to the 16th:
01/16/43
Day Air attack on Rangoon , at 29,34
Japanese aircraft
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 14
Allied aircraft
Beaufort V-IX x 15
P-40E Warhawk x 57
B-25C Mitchell x 104
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 19 destroyed
Ki-21 Sally: 11 destroyed
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 11 destroyed
L2D2 Tabby: 3 destroyed
Allied aircraft losses
Beaufort V-IX: 3 destroyed, 3 damaged
B-25C Mitchell: 21 damaged
Japanese ground losses:
223 casualties reported
Guns lost 10
Airbase hits 24
Airbase supply hits 13
Runway hits 128
Aircraft Attacking:
B-25C Mitchell bombing at 9000 feet
2 Groups of Mitchells savaged the airstrip with the cover of the 24th FG. Who needs heavies?

01/16/43
Day Air attack on Rangoon , at 29,34
Japanese aircraft
no flights
Allied aircraft
Liberator VI x 16
B-17E Fortress x 32
B-24D Liberator x 48
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 2 destroyed
B5N Kate: 1 destroyed
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 5 destroyed
Ki-21 Sally: 2 destroyed
Allied aircraft losses
Liberator VI: 3 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 1 damaged
Japanese ground losses:
163 casualties reported
Guns lost 2
Airbase hits 18
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 162
Aircraft Attacking:
All bombers attacking at 7000 feet
The heavies churn up the wreckage some more.
The next non storm day is the 18th. Suspect that CAP from supporting bases is up, based on recon flights, so P38 squadron sent in early morning sweep to soften up the opposition:
01/18/43
Day Air attack on Rangoon , at 29,34
Japanese aircraft
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 11
Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 23
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-61 KAIc Tony: 4 destroyed
Allied aircraft losses
P-38G Lightning: 1 damaged
Only one B25 group is ready for this attack, the other is gassed at morale in the 30’s and stood down. Attack shows fewer targets on the ground, but most every plane generates a hit on the strip.
01/18/43
Day Air attack on Rangoon , at 29,34
Japanese aircraft
no flights
Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 61
B-25C Mitchell x 32
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21 Sally: 3 destroyed
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 2 destroyed
Ki-61 KAIc Tony: 1 destroyed
L2D2 Tabby: 1 destroyed
B5N Kate: 1 destroyed
Allied aircraft losses
B-25C Mitchell: 1 destroyed, 10 damaged
Japanese ground losses:
52 casualties reported
Guns lost 1
Airbase hits 2
Runway hits 31
Aircraft Attacking:
24 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 9000 feet
7 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 9000 feet
The heavy groups come down again, with the Brits working on the port facilities now; The American groups find the bomber revetments and do some damage, though diminishing returns are setting in.

01/18/43
Day Air attack on Rangoon , at 29,34
Japanese aircraft
no flights
Allied aircraft
Liberator VI x 25
B-17E Fortress x 37
B-24D Liberator x 43
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21 Sally: 12 destroyed
Ki-61 KAIc Tony: 2 destroyed
L2D2 Tabby: 4 destroyed
B5N Kate: 1 destroyed
Allied aircraft losses
Liberator VI: 1 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 3 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 4 damaged
Japanese Ships
AK Hyuga Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
Japanese ground losses:
121 casualties reported
Airbase hits 4
Runway hits 88
Port hits 4
Port supply hits 2
Aircraft Attacking:
All set to bomb at 7000 feet

01/19/43
Day Air attack on Rangoon , at 29,34
Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 18
No Allied losses
The final attack runs show the tiredness of the force. Only about ½ of the groups are flying now due to fatigue and damages; and the results are not as good as the intial strikes.
01/19/43
Day Air attack on Rangoon , at 29,34
Japanese aircraft
no flights
Allied aircraft
Liberator VI x 24
B-17E Fortress x 28
B-24D Liberator x 34
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-61 KAIc Tony: 2 destroyed
Ki-21 Sally: 2 destroyed
Allied aircraft losses
Liberator VI: 2 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 2 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 3 damaged
Japanese Ships
AK Hyuga Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
Japanese ground losses:
66 casualties reported
Guns lost 2
Airbase hits 3
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 28
Port hits 1
Port supply hits 8
Aircraft Attacking:
All set to bomb at 7000 feet

Now, these are with groups that are not overstacked in any fashion, are for the most part all groups that were assigned to SEAC and have been used in a reasonable fashion throughout ’42. The 19th BG is the only Fortress group that has a majority of its crews over 50 missions, as it has been in constant action from the PI, through Java then evacuated to India; where it has mainly done ground support missions to impede the Japanese advance on Mandalay/Lashio. The only non-original SEAC planes would be the 2 squadrons that left PI in their P26’s and 35’s; they converted to the P39->38 and P40E respectively. Their presence has been needed to counterbalance the Japanese effort here for the last 6 months, where in air to air combat, over 600 Spitfire and Hurricane losses have been suffered from constant combat over Akyab-Mandalay area, which at one point drove the Brit pilot pool down to sub 20 level.

I don’t know if this will contribute anything at all to the discussion here, other than to highlight again the need for the IJNAF/IJAAF to operate from more than one base in any particular operation, or be prepared to defend it quite heavily or suffer the consequences.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

No offense, but your post is a prime example of why these discussions careen out of control and polarize around US vs Japan bullshit.

Well, the post that sparked this thread is 4 engine bombers hitting Rangoon in a not particularly huge strike (200 runway hits, 50 aircraft destroyed on the ground - now you are talking [:D]).

My counter point is that the 4 engine bomber deal is small beer. Its not an issue of mechanics really - it may well be an issue of OOB.

And as a further point, if anything is out of whack its Japan, not the Allies. The games that have gone on to the bitter end seem to end in 1944 or 1945, so it looks like the Allied counterattack is pretty much historical timewise. You see people taking Tarawa in mid 43, for example, landing on the PI in 1944... You dont see the Allies romping into Tokyo at the end of 42 or anything. So I would say the Allies are functioning more or less, with the caveat that this is a game not WW2-in-a-box, pretty much fine.

On the other hand, we have Japan invading India, beating down China in a space of a couple of months, invading Pearl Harbor or New Zealand, sawing off the USSR... all sorts of fun things which are far more dicy.

[Nikademus]

I don't agree that the issue of bombers vs bases is 'small beer' Thats why i did something about it. The rest of what you wrote i won't address in this thread. Off topic.