Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

We are playing with PDU off, so that may affect how many squadrons he can upgrade to the Tojo.  I don't think we'll see the flood witnessed in games with PDU on.  However, I have a poor understanding of research and upgrades, so I could be wrong.

Hi Canoerebel,

You can expect to see a grand total of 90 Ki-44-IIa Tojo's in units of 42, 36 and 12 aircraft respectively with PDU off in 1942. The rest are Nates, Zero's or Oscar 1c's. A number of Sentai's with obsolete aircraft will also upgrade when the Ki-44-IIb comes online in 1943.

I may be wrong with the numbers, I keep forgetting this is Scenario 2. I have no idea how many Sentai's are able to convert under this scenario. I do know that the Ki-44-IIa is available in June as opposed to August in this case. So lets be safe and say you may face a minimum of 90 Tojo's [;)].

ORIGINAL: Alfred

You have missed my point. There are too many Japanese units who are way beyond reach of Allied strikes.

Alfred

I understand that there are too many training units beyond his immediate reach, but the purpose for my question was to inquire into how the game dealt with strafing attacks upon grounded fighters. I was unsure if strafing their airfields would result in pilot losses as well as material losses or if it resulted in only material losses.

No, strafing doesn't affect your pilot pools.

The only way to kill pilots is in aerial combat.  (Note, though, that not all pilots are killed when their aircraft are shot down.  Some become POWs.  And sometimes the pilot parachutes to safety - quite often this happens when the fighting is over a friendly base).

I've just been corrected by PM that pilots can die on the ground also.  However, the message, which came from one who wishes to remain anonymous, didn't tell me how they die.  Perhaps this means that they can die when their planes are destroyed on the ground (by strafing or bombing attacks).  Or perhaps random dice rolls can result in disease, psychological disorders, getting lost in the jungle while relieving themselves, or a crazed banzai attack like occurred at the Iwo Jima airfield in 1945.

I would delve more into this, but to be honest I am not a big fan of the pilot-training routine.  Adding management of how they can die apart from aerial combat is duty beyond my pay grade.

Yes, I've seen pilots destroyed on the ground when their planes are hit on the ground. However, the initial point, that Japan has oodles of training groups in Manchuria and the Home Islands out of the reach of the Allies, is still valid.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel


I would very much like Nemo to feel welcome here and to continue with his insightful AARs.

+1

Cheers,

Martin

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

Yes, I've seen pilots destroyed on the ground when their planes are hit on the ground. However, the initial point, that Japan has oodles of training groups in Manchuria and the Home Islands out of the reach of the Allies, is still valid.

I agree that the initial point about the IJ training units makes this idea as a whole a moot point, but the very fact that it's such a rare event for pilots to be killed on the ground that many here have never seen it happen just reinforces my initial suspicion that it's inconsequential to pilot experience levels anyway.

An anonymous but bright poster PM'ed that the Japanese attack on the American airfield at Iwo Jima was not a crazed banzaii attack at all, but rather a well-thought out and disciplined infiltration mission.  I actually knew that, but in my haste to sound whitty and rakish I permitted error to slip into my narrative.  I thank the anonymous benefactor for straightening me out.

Query:  The Japanese defense of Iwo Jima (and also Pelelieu and Okinawa) was very different from Tarawa.  Was this purely on the initiative of the local commanders, so that the successes of these defenses wouldn't necessarily have been carried over to the defense of Japan, or (1) had the strategy come from the High Command in Japan, or if not (2) would word have gotten back to Japan so that the strategy might have been perpetrated? 

That's a long way of asking:  Would the Allies have faced Iwo Jim/Okinawa in Japan, or would they have faced Tarawa?

ORIGINAL: Paladin1dcs

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

Yes, I've seen pilots destroyed on the ground when their planes are hit on the ground. However, the initial point, that Japan has oodles of training groups in Manchuria and the Home Islands out of the reach of the Allies, is still valid.

I agree that the initial point about the IJ training units makes this idea as a whole a moot point, but the very fact that it's such a rare event for pilots to be killed on the ground that many here have never seen it happen just reinforces my initial suspicion that it's inconsequential to pilot experience levels anyway.

I concur. It's theoretically possible, but not at all probable.

Actually, besides perhaps a rough fight on the beaches that may have been closer to Tarawa, I would say the fighting would be more like what occurred in the Phillipines - lots of terrain and frontage, but with lots of allied firepower deployed to attempt to limit the number of allied casaulties.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

An anonymous but bright poster PM'ed that the Japanese attack on the American airfield at Iwo Jima was not a crazed banzaii attack at all, but rather a well-thought out and disciplined infiltration mission.  I actually knew that, but in my haste to sound whitty and rakish I permitted error to slip into my narrative.  I thank the anonymous benefactor for straightening me out.

Query:  The Japanese defense of Iwo Jima (and also Pelelieu and Okinawa) was very different from Tarawa.  Was this purely on the initiative of the local commanders, so that the successes of these defenses wouldn't necessarily have been carried over to the defense of Japan, or (1) had the strategy come from the High Command in Japan, or if not (2) would word have gotten back to Japan so that the strategy might have been perpetrated? 

That's a long way of asking:  Would the Allies have faced Iwo Jim/Okinawa in Japan, or would they have faced Tarawa?

Damn good question. I think Iwo was generally the good choices of the local commander. However, I think when you look at the evolution of Japanese defenses throughout the war they gravitated more and more to the "cave/bunker" strategy. It may be convergent evolution, it may be a plan, but my guess is we would have faced Iwo on steroids where the terrain permitted.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

An anonymous but bright poster PM'ed that the Japanese attack on the American airfield at Iwo Jima was not a crazed banzaii attack at all, but rather a well-thought out and disciplined infiltration mission.  I actually knew that, but in my haste to sound whitty and rakish I permitted error to slip into my narrative.  I thank the anonymous benefactor for straightening me out.

Query:  The Japanese defense of Iwo Jima (and also Pelelieu and Okinawa) was very different from Tarawa.  Was this purely on the initiative of the local commanders, so that the successes of these defenses wouldn't necessarily have been carried over to the defense of Japan, or (1) had the strategy come from the High Command in Japan, or if not (2) would word have gotten back to Japan so that the strategy might have been perpetrated? 

That's a long way of asking:  Would the Allies have faced Iwo Jima/Okinawa in Japan, or would they have faced Tarawa?

The success of the Japanese defenses on both Okinawa, and Iwo Jima were largely the works of their respective local commanders. Ushijima/Yahara and Kuribayashi were all very "Westernized" and this showed in both their treatment of their commands and the results achieved.

The problem is that small unit tactics weren't passed on due to the annihilation of Japanese garrisons. This is actually one of the reasons Ushijima forbade Yahara from committing harakiri when the fall of Okinawa became imminent; someone needed to return to Japan with the knowledge and experience gained during the defense of Okinawa. On a more broad level, it was apparent to the Imperial HQ that the heavily defensive strategies adopted worked well and that was the path the Home Islands defenses were taking.

We would have faced another Okinawa, except against more numerous, more heavily prepared, and better supplied fortications.

Shift from "beach defense" to the "defense in depth" is apparent all the way from Tarawa to Iwo Jima /Okinaw. Japanese realized that they cannot face allied naval and air supperiority on the beaches - their positions would be destroyed or incapacitated before the troops got ashore and overrun quickly (Tarawa was example of allied preparation fire lifted too soon and not being throughout).

So they went with defense in depth which had the effect of considerably slowing the enemy giving home islands more time to prepare for defense. I would say that in operation Downfall Japanese would try to delay allies on Kyushu as much as possible. But probably there would also be some BIG counteroffensive to break throug allied lines. However this would be very costly.

On the Kanto plain, the Japanese wouldnt have the posibilities, so they would probably be overran.

Osprey has "Japanese Pacific island Defenses 1941-45" by Gordon L Rottman.

He doesnt get as far as describing Home Island defenses, concentrates more on the years 1943-44.

Well worth the read, though maybe not worth the buy.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I've just been corrected by PM that pilots can die on the ground also.  However, the message, which came from one who wishes to remain anonymous, didn't tell me how they die.  Perhaps this means that they can die when their planes are destroyed on the ground (by strafing or bombing attacks).  Or perhaps random dice rolls can result in disease, psychological disorders, getting lost in the jungle while relieving themselves, or a crazed banzai attack like occurred at the Iwo Jima airfield in 1945.

I would delve more into this, but to be honest I am not a big fan of the pilot-training routine.  Adding management of how they can die apart from aerial combat is duty beyond my pay grade.

Yes. My worst day was when 16 B-17s flew on what I thought was my combined AAA and CAP trap with 60 heavy guns, 50 Zeroes and 10 Ki-45s. I lost 5 planes in the air(1 pilot WIA) and 5 Zeroes on the ground(3 KIA 2 WIA) for 0 kills. 1 of those KIA pilots was Sakai, 2 others were also 5 and 6 kill aces and the 2 wounded were complete greentags from a "Netty escort squadron". [:@]

However I dont think the game mechanics are as in BTR where every each non-damaged non-repairing plane on the ground, including night fighters in daytime phase and day fighters in nighttime phase, are manned. Losing pilots in the ground seems to be rare so I think the game actually does track pilots who are in the CAP/LRCAP cycle and actually in cockpit, but failed to take off for any reason, before the raid reached the base.

However I dont think those lost pilots are reported in the intel screen, but the player has to keep track of the pilots himself or look for "ACE WIA/KIA" entries in the WitPTracker's Alert section. If the pilot wasnt an ace or a leader I dont think theres a way to know you lost someone other than checking the under action air units each turn.

6/11/42
 
DEI:  B-17s from Oosthaven sortied against enemy shipping at Balikpan, scoring hits on 25 xAK, two xAP, two DMS, and one APD.  Japan has abundant shipping, but this strike is enough to cause some angst (aren't successful port strikes against any player's ships always a bit vexxing?).  The air transport convoy delivered the Kittyhawk and Warhawk squadrons to Oosthaven (that's important).

Bay of Bengal:  KB remains at Georgetown.

Burma:  Japan takes Pegu.  Unless Japan reinforces considerably, the Allies will wage a campaign for western Burma, trying to blunt and counter any enemy moves that way.  Steve will have to reinforce to recapture what was his just a few weeks ago.

China:  The Japanese are beginning to move out of Chengchow now.  Odds are favorable that the enemy is about to make a mistake by dividing forces, thus inviting defeat in detail.

NoPac:  That enemy TF was one or two APDs bringing supply to isolated Amchitka. The TF anchored by BB Pennsylvania and CL Trenton will depart Kodiak for Dutch Harbor tonight.

CenPac:  I have to make a quick decision about the RCT 100% prepped for Ocean Island.  I may land half the troops at Tarawa and send the other half part way to Mili while engaging is some quick recon flights tomorrow to see if that base is vacant.

SoPac:  Most of 19th RCT is ashore at Pago Pago, increasing the AV to roughly 480.  This base should be secure until Japan brings reinforcements, which is what the Allies want here in "Little Vietnam."  A squadron of Buffaloes flew in from Canton Island - the first fighters to this base.  I hope some Bettys will bite the dust tomorrow.

Mini-KB:  I lost track of the Mini-KB last sighted yesterday near Zamboanga.  My strong suspicion is that it is bound for CenPac and Tarawa.  Little Vietnam # 2.

Can you naval bomb Georgetown with your B-17s? While that's a far more dangerous target than Balikpapan, a couple bomb hits on CVs could cause him more delays in that he would have to repair them before moving on Sumatra, or else use a significantly reduced carrier force. He evidently thinks that his carriers are safe there, maybe you should challenge that perception if possible.

As for his Mini-KB, maybe he figures that he can cut off and then take Pago Pago with CV support due to all the Allied CVs being near Sumatra. That might be further evidence that he might not be really concentrating for the assault on Sumatra just yet.

That's going to hurt - just from the standpoint of having to reorganize his shipping & bring in fresh vessels to take the place of the damaged ones.

noob question. RCT?
reg. combat team?

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

noob question. RCT?
reg. combat team?

Yes.