Scenario 17

[tocaff]

Again Ike has done a nice job.  Has anybody noticed that the growth of Japanese VPs this last month was very small (80)?  The Rising Sun has hit it's zenith and now in November & December of '42 will see more and more Japanese units suffereing attrition.  Ike failed to mention that the IJN is very cautious where it sails and in what weather now.  I believe that the Japanese have lost somewhere near about 40 APs and a few TKs.  These loses hurt his ability to move troops and supplies and the situation will hopefully worsen for him if I do the proper things.  Playing at the 100% ship level is a trying experience and lift capacity is crucial.  As to the KB, what can I say other than eventually we'll have our CVs duel and then my AA and CAPs will, I hope, cut his planes to ribbons.  Even without losing CVs the loses in planes and pilots will be debilitating as empty decks or green pilots are nothing more than targets.  Oh yes and the P-38s have entered the building and have been awaiting their deplyment to the front lines.  The key for the Allied player is to be patient, survive 1942 in decent shape and only take what is presented on a golden platter.  So far I can say check, check and check.  The clock is running and Ike is digging deeply while my forces are starting to chomp at the bit.

[Ike99]

The Allies have conceded the game to me after having a New Guinea invasion force mauled at sea by carrier and land based air power. So it was a very good game and very educational for me. Todd taught me alot about how to play the game. Later I'll put up some Statistics on the game.





Shipping losses....

Japanese-
34 AP Transports.
3 TK Tranports.
4 SS Submarines.
6 PC Patrol Boats.
1 AV
2 ML Mine Layers.
1 PG Patrol Boat.
2 APD
6 Destroyers.
2 Light Cruisers.

Allies-
1 CA Heavy Cruiser.
9 DD Destroyers.
22 PT Patrol Boats.
1 SS Submarine.
5 SC Patrol Boats.
6 AP Transports.
2 AK Transports.
2 APD
1 DM

Air Losses....

Allies-
66 (4E)bombers.

more statistics later

[Miller]

I dont understand[&:] Why did Todd throw in the towel.......he still has all his carriers.....what happened?

[Ike99]

I dont understand Why did Todd throw in the towel.......he still has all his carriers.....what happened?

Hi Miller, Todd told me his AK's he had loaded with supplies and the supplies vanished. He also said he had CAP that didn't fly and he no longer has lift capability for offensive operations.

[british exil]

What a shame it ended so sudden was really enjoying the AAR. Great way to present it. I liked the pics kept making me smile.

Maybe I can read another one of you in near future.

[tocaff]

Let the record show that Bettys and Nells can be very deadly, especially when the CAP is AWOL.  No lift capacity left, no way to wage war.  

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

some small action in October....

I don't know exactly where this battle occured, but if it happened in a mined harbor w/multiple PT TFs, the outcome might have been very different considering there's only one screening vessel for Ike's capital ships.

This is a good reason to play against the AI; at least it doesn't taunt you!

[Ike99]

I don't know exactly where this battle occured, but if it happened in a mined harbor w/multiple PT TFs, the outcome might have been very different considering there's only one screening vessel for Ike's capital ships.

Hi Joe, there were more ships in that group I just cut the picture down to make it smaller. [:D]

This is a good reason to play against the AI; at least it doesn't taunt you!

Well now Joe this is a wargame and we are all big boys here. Propaganda-&-Competition come with the territory. [8D]

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Miller
Hi, nice AAR. I take it you decided to dig in and await Todd's counter-attack.
Perpare to be bombed into the stoneage by his LBA in 1943[:D] This is the tough reality I'm afraid. You do not have any fighters with heavy enough armament to shoot down his 4E bombers.

So tocaff lost more than 60 B17s due to AAA? I always set my '17s to 11,000 plus to avoid AAA losses as Zeroes don't usually pose a serious threat to them.

[Ike99]

So tocaff lost more than 60 B17s due to AAA? I always set my '17s to 11,000 plus to avoid AAA losses as Zeroes don't usually pose a serious threat to them.

It was a combination of factors I think.

1.I loaded up on the AAA guns at forward bases.

2.His bombers always came at 6,000 ft.

3.Most raids I could get 2-1, 3-1 fighter interceptor to bomber raider.

4.His bombers were flying pretty long distances so damaged bombers were crashing before getting home.

5.His bombers were unescorted.

6.Ships in port lended a hand in adding AAA defense.

7. I had alot of engineers and supplies in the forward bases to repair the fields as soon as possible and keep the airfileds open.

8. I rotated my fighter groups in and out of my forward bases to Truk and Rabaul to keep them fresh and rested with good morale.


How bad his 4E's were suffering I don't know but I don't think he could have sustained this loss rate. When he started getting escorts for them I would probably have had big trouble real fast. But up to this time I didn't see the super 4E weapon everyone talks about. The 4E's are certainly tough and hit hard but they are not indestructable and can be attrited I think. Certainly I would have been overwelmed at some point but up to this time I was in good shape.

When I did become overwelmed my plan was to fast transport out my aviation support units, most AAA units and disperse them with my fighters on all my bases being built all over the place. Use my carriers as a fire brigade. Then take a beating [:D]and hope the points hold up high enough.

Edit...I should say my plan was basicly formed around some post and ideas posted by Mogami and this thread where the Japanese won on points...

tm.asp?m=355499&mpage=1&k

ey=game񖲫

[decaro]

I think tocaff's B-17s took a worse beating than the 8th AF's daylight raids over Germany!

6,000 ft. is just too low against intense AAA; if I still took heavy bomber casualites at 11,000, I'd up it to 15,000 or more and sacrifice accuracey for bomber survival. The idea is to keep coming back until the enemy airfield is out of business, but w/all those engineers/supplies you had on hand, that might still prove difficult.

I wonder if tocaff was as dilligent in rotating/resting his bombers as you were your fighters.

Until the Allied P-38 Lightning's arrive, I think there's a unit of long-distance escort fighters (Beaufighters) available, but they're almost worthless in air-to-air combat, or as base CAP despite their impressive range.

[Ike99]

6,000 ft. is just too low against intense AAA; if I still took heavy bomber casualites at 11,000, I'd up it to 15,000 or more and sacrifice accuracey for bomber survival.

Honestly I don't think it was the AAA that was doing the damage. The AAA just wasn't so effective.

The Zeros were chewing them up. Were they shooting them down...NO...but after the raids I would see messages like...

¨B17 crashes returning to base, Pilot Sakai credited with a kill number 2¨

I discovered very early if your pilots are tired, low morale or training the B17's will drive them away with defensive fire and you won't do anything to them.

If the opposite is true they will go in and attack, you can damage many of them and hopefully some crash on the way home. That's about all you can do with them. [:@]

But I don't think it was an altitude problem mainly. Escort, my pilot rotation and distance problem is what I'm thinking.

[decaro]

I recall sending waves of B-17s from PM to Rabaul @ 11,000 w/few losses, so either (1) my AI opponent wasn't rotating its fighters or (2) tocaff wasn't rotating his bombers, which frankly can be a lot of work since you have to move them one flight at a time.

Standing the bombers down is easier, but not as efficient/effective as moving them further back for R&R.

I recall that UV gives significant penalties to tired pilots, i.e., not enough "uncommon" valor to engage the enemy.

[Warfare1]

Whenever I bomb Japanese bases such as Rabaul when it has lots of fighter cover, I send in my Flying Fortresses at 30,000 feet. At this altitude they maintain good morale and they don't need fighter escort. In addition, they take almost no losses at that altitude either from AAA or fighters.

Then, on each successive bombing run I drop the FFs down a thousand feet, until I hit that sweet spot between achieving good bombing damage results with minimal FF losses.

[decaro]

How are the bombing results at 30,000?

[british exil]

It was a combination of factors I think.

2.His bombers always came at 6,000 ft.

5.His bombers were unescorted.

I can't understand why he was flying his bombers in at so low altitude.
Ok the lower they fly the more damage they do but the return is not worth it, when you consider the losses.

[Warfare1]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

How are the bombing results at 30,000?

In one session I had 25 FFs bombing Rabaul at 30,000 feet. The results are not spectacular, but I am aiming for long-term results.

During each bombing run, I drop the FF altitude by 1,000 feet. I eventually have them come down to about 20,000-22,000 feet.

This results in the following:

1) FF morale stays high.

2) Minimal FF damage.

3) Japanese fighters get worn down, damaged and destroyed either on the ground or in the air. After each bombing run, fewer and fewer fighters scramble. Same result to enemy bombers: they get hit, damaged or destroyed on the ground, meaning fewer attacks on Port Morseby.

4) Bomber damage to airways, ports, and supplies accumulates.

Again, I am aiming at long-term results: keeping FF morale high while minimizing losses, while still being able to continually strike at Japanese bases.

[Warfare1]

ORIGINAL: british exil


It was a combination of factors I think.

2.His bombers always came at 6,000 ft.

5.His bombers were unescorted.

I can't understand why he was flying his bombers in at so low altitude.
Ok the lower they fly the more damage they do but the return is not worth it, when you consider the losses.

I would also imagine that FF morale plummeted. Hard to get those flyboys up when they're sulking under the table...