A Japanese Debacle - Sqz (J) vs. fcharton (A)

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

I will do my best to curb my complaining. I know it doesn't leave a good impression. Since none of you can know fully what is, or isn't, happening on my side, I'm afraid you'll just have to put up with my displeasure until the AI evens things up a little.

Can you dive deeper in the DEI? Like jumping for Koepang and some of the islands off Java? If you take them and make them into Netty bases, he can't really hang around there anymore.

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

I will do my best to curb my complaining. I know it doesn't leave a good impression. Since none of you can know fully what is, or isn't, happening on my side, I'm afraid you'll just have to put up with my displeasure until the AI evens things up a little.

Can you dive deeper in the DEI? Like jumping for Koepang and some of the islands off Java? If you take them and make them into Netty bases, he can't really hang around there anymore.

No.

This is what I've been trying to say for a month. Francois does not fear Japanese LBA and has been aggressively sailing within Betty/Nell range all game. They are not hitting anything. Basing my advance on Japanese LBA being effective or a deterrent is a fools errand. I've been experiencing this all game, but nothing that should be considered getting upset about apparently.

Thanks for the suggestion. If I thought it might make a difference I would try, but the first 30 days shows me my LBA is more a liability than an asset right now, and not something I can rely on.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

DEI

Ok, so I will assume that you have built up Manado to at least AF=4 by now. Given that, your search arcs are exactly what I anticipated ... it is far from given that your Netties will launch. Very difficult to achieve high enough DL with your search arcs without the mini-KB near by.

Thoughts: Can you get a CS just south of Manado with Jakes? 20 or 24 Jakes will add at least +2 to the DL you are achieving. IF not, how about a few AV's with stationed at Taliaboe or Sorong to support a 24 -36 size Jake group?

But getting back to my earlier recommendation; I would abort this southern move. It is not on your critical path, you need to be north of here securing Miri, Bali and Palem.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
it is far from given that your Netties will launch. Very difficult to achieve high enough DL

+1

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Sydney Theatre Jan. 7/42:

I look at that picture and see grave troubles for Oz! Can you fly in troops to the Sydney blocking position to bolster their defense. I suspect attacking with Oz troops this early will be a huge mistake for the Allies.

I have seen that in Lok's game near Perth.[;)]

I think the difference between you and me and our approach to Japan, is that I now think that Japan never gets any breaks and I am pleasantly surprised when she does. So I open every turn expecting the worst![:D]

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

...Japan never gets any breaks and I am pleasantly surprised when she does...

+1

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I look at that picture and see grave troubles for Oz! Can you fly in troops to the Sydney blocking position to bolster their defense. I suspect attacking with Oz troops this early will be a huge mistake for the Allies.

I have seen that in Lok's game near Perth.[;)]

I think the difference between you and me and our approach to Japan, is that I now think that Japan never gets any breaks and I am pleasantly surprised when she does. So I open every turn expecting the worst![:D]

You're always so positive Lowpe. I wish I could emulate your attitude and enthusiasm at the best, and worst, of times.

I need to learn to look at playing Japan as you and Pax do.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon


I need to learn to look at playing Japan as you and Pax do.

Ooh, I don't know about that! I make a pretty good mess of Japan.[:D]

[SqzMyLemon]

Anyway, the moment you've been waiting for, those of you that remain.

Jan. 8/42:

The first deliberate attack goes in at Sydney. AAR follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Sydney (90,167)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 54913 troops, 461 guns, 134 vehicles, Assault Value = 1725

Defending force 30131 troops, 419 guns, 337 vehicles, Assault Value = 569

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 1

Japanese adjusted assault: 1478

Allied adjusted defense: 1085

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

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), preparation(-), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
1322 casualties reported
Squads: 7 destroyed, 160 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 36 disabled
Engineers: 26 destroyed, 13 disabled
Guns lost 10 (3 destroyed, 7 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
2261 casualties reported
Squads: 54 destroyed, 80 disabled
Non Combat: 12 destroyed, 37 disabled
Engineers: 5 destroyed, 30 disabled
Guns lost 76 (5 destroyed, 71 disabled)
Vehicles lost 29 (4 destroyed, 25 disabled)
Units destroyed 1

Assaulting units:
56th Engineer Regiment
16th Infantry Regiment
33rd Division
20th Infantry Regiment
4th Division
16th Engineer Regiment
2nd Recon Regiment
24th Infantry Regiment
2nd Engineer Regiment
21st Division
7th Tank Regiment
2nd Field Artillery Regiment
16th Army
56th Field Artillery Regiment
148th Infantry Rgt /2
113th Infantry Rgt /2

Defending units:
2/3rd Ind Coy
28th Australian Brigade
5th Australian Brigade
14th Australian Brigade
9th Australian Brigade
1st LH MG Regiment
8th Australian Brigade
6th Australian Brigade
2/4th Ind Coy
6th LH Motor Regiment
Sydney Fortress
21st Fld RAA Regiment
16th Fld RAA Regiment
New Guinea Force
RAAF Command
Sydney OTU Base Force
1st RAA Med Arty Regiment
Sydney RAN Base Force
1st Australian Army
4th Aus Lt AA Regiment

Japanese forces attack and capture Goulburn. AAR follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Goulburn (88,168)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 5589 troops, 44 guns, 178 vehicles, Assault Value = 233

Defending force 3041 troops, 46 guns, 36 vehicles, Assault Value = 87

Japanese adjusted assault: 197

Allied adjusted defense: 27

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

Japanese forces CAPTURE Goulburn !!!

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), op mode(-), leaders(-), preparation(-)
experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
8 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Allied ground losses:
868 casualties reported
Squads: 27 destroyed, 23 disabled
Non Combat: 62 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 9 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 19 (14 destroyed, 5 disabled)
Vehicles lost 31 (29 destroyed, 2 disabled)
Units retreated 1

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
4th Tank Regiment
9th Infantry Regiment
16th Recon Regiment
2nd Tank Regiment

Defending units:
3rd Australian Brigade

Allied air appears in large numbers today and attack Japanese forces at Goulburn. Zero fighters based at Port Kembla finally live up to their reputation. I recorded 30 bomber losses during the replay. No B-17's were encountered today which was good for me. AAR's follow:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 56th Recon Regiment, at 91,164 , near Tamworth

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 36 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 16 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 3

Allied aircraft
SBD-2 Dauntless x 17

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
SBD-2 Dauntless: 3 destroyed, 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
63 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 7 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 9th Infantry Regiment, at 88,168 (Goulburn)

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 19 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 15

Allied aircraft
Wirraway x 10
A-24 Banshee x 4
SB2U-3 Vindicator x 16

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Wirraway: 7 destroyed
A-24 Banshee: 2 destroyed
SB2U-3 Vindicator: 10 destroyed, 2 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
8 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 9th Infantry Regiment, at 88,168 (Goulburn)

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 8 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 6

Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 12
TBD-1 Devastator x 15

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
TBD-1 Devastator: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
22 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 4th Tank Regiment, at 88,168 (Goulburn)

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 10 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 1

Allied aircraft
A-24 Banshee x 22

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
A-24 Banshee: 1 damaged



Thoughts:

On the day, air losses were 8:45 in my favour with over forty Allied bombers accounted for. It looks like at least one American CV's worth of aircraft were lost today. I'm pretty sure I'm going to see a ton of Allied fighters next turn, which will make my situation difficult.

What next? Disruption and fatigue are in the mid-teens for Japanese units at Sydney. My paratroops at Bathurst will get routed tomorrow and Australian reinforcements could arrive at Sydney in strategic mode in two days. Do I dare risk another attack tomorrow, or wait a day to recover some disruption? Should I try a naval bombardment and risk the defences? These are a couple of questions I need to ask myself before I complete the next turn.

I can try to fly in some reinforcements to Bathurst, but I don't think the AV will be enough to hold, especially when I'm positive the base will be targeted heavily by B-17's. It's going to be touch and go, but if I can capture Sydney my life gets a lot less complicated. I need to get reinforcements into the theatre quickly and try to get Sydney isolated completely.

[FeurerKrieg]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

...Japan never gets any breaks and I am pleasantly surprised when she does...

+1

+2

[FeurerKrieg]

1:1 at Sydney is certainly a good thing. I was certainly disappointed when my first attacks at Colombo didn't come off at the greatest odds. I knew it meant weeks of fighting ahead. But 1:1 is pretty good for a first attack - and forts came down!

Anyway - I won't comment on whether you should attack tomorrow or not since I read both AARs.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

1:1 at Sydney is certainly a good thing. I was certainly disappointed when my first attacks at Colombo didn't come off at the greatest odds. I knew it meant weeks of fighting ahead. But 1:1 is pretty good for a first attack - and forts came down!

Anyway - I won't comment on whether you should attack tomorrow or not since I read both AARs.

I agree that you did well - his complete loss of 57 AV plus some of those 80 disabled squads plus forts lowered to 1 mean his 529 AV of today will be much less effective tomorrow. Mid teens disruption is not that bad and he must be suffering too. Now is the time to go for broke - time is against you

[Lowpe]

You could attack, and I bet if you bombed with the KB's torpedo bombers & bombarded you might disrupt the defenders enough for you to win. A straight attack with no support I don't think would win, but the third attack would.

Given the situation, I would hit Sydney with everything I had bomber wise and ship bombardment wise. Taking it, and all your ships can rearm. Set bombardment distance to 12 or greater to avoid being mauled by the coastal guns and pray.

I would also long range CAP the paratroops and fly whatever I can into that base. His B17s are in China, no? He couldn't escort his bombers well last turn, and I doubt he can this turn. Allied fighter pools are very weak early, and he can't be happy with this most recent turn.

It is very hard giving advice with the limited information...but 1-1 is great first attack in an UH terrain. [:)]

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon


I need to learn to look at playing Japan as you and Pax do.

Ooh, I don't know about that! I make a pretty good mess of Japan.[:D]

Next time I have a game opening, we should play [;)]

[Lokasenna]

RE: Sydney

Disruption and fatigue in the mid-teens is great! My typical cut off for a consecutive attack is high-30s fatigue and higher than 25 disruption, although I will weigh my options... if the units don't have a lot of disabled devices that would be destroyed, then I might still attack. I definitely won't attack if fatigue is 50-60 and disruption is 40+. Mid-teens says to me that you should attack again. His units are likely in worse shape, especially considering the casualties.

I think you just need maybe 2 more attacks and Sydney is yours. That would be amazing.

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

You could attack, and I bet if you bombed with the KB's torpedo bombers & bombarded you might disrupt the defenders enough for you to win. A straight attack with no support I don't think would win, but the third attack would.

Given the situation, I would hit Sydney with everything I had bomber wise and ship bombardment wise. Taking it, and all your ships can rearm. Set bombardment distance to 12 or greater to avoid being mauled by the coastal guns and pray.

I would also long range CAP the paratroops and fly whatever I can into that base. His B17s are in China, no? He couldn't escort his bombers well last turn, and I doubt he can this turn. Allied fighter pools are very weak early, and he can't be happy with this most recent turn.

It is very hard giving advice with the limited information...but 1-1 is great first attack in an UH terrain. [:)]

I'll try to provide more information. There is at least one, maybe two, 4E squadrons operating in Australia based at either Brisbane or Melbourne. There is a P-40E squadron and possibly four Buffalo and Wildcat carrier based squadrons at the very least. So there are enough fighters and bombers to ruin my day.

I can use KB's aircraft to cause disruption and can hit Sydney with naval bombardments with the following ships:

2 BB's
7 CA's
4 CL's
36 DD's

Naval assets approaching Rockhampton are:

1 CVL
1 CVE
4 BB's
3 CA's
1 CL
21 DD's

Troops:

1st Infantry Rgt.
5th Tank Rgt.
8th Tank Rgt.

[SqzMyLemon]

Regarding the paratroops at Bathurst. This is a small chance, remote even, that somehow the paratroops are not destroyed during the Allied counterattack. I own the base and hex outright, so I have a viable retreat path along the main road towards Port Kembla, providing the AI choose that route. If somehow that happens, I block the rail line to Sydney for at least another day, maybe two. The only troops I could airlift to Bathurst would be elements of 113th Inf. Rgt. currently at Newcastle. Here's the rub, there is no aviation support at the base so the transports will have to land, pick up the 113th, and suffer whatever damage to aircraft accrues. I think it is worth a try. If I can hold Bathurst for another day, or at least get a favourable retreat, it will be huge.

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

RE: Sydney

Disruption and fatigue in the mid-teens is great! My typical cut off for a consecutive attack is high-30s fatigue and higher than 25 disruption, although I will weigh my options... if the units don't have a lot of disabled devices that would be destroyed, then I might still attack. I definitely won't attack if fatigue is 50-60 and disruption is 40+. Mid-teens says to me that you should attack again. His units are likely in worse shape, especially considering the casualties.

I think you just need maybe 2 more attacks and Sydney is yours. That would be amazing.

Would you go all out, air and naval bombardments followed by an assault? Would you go deliberate or shock? My experience with consecutive ground attacks has not been good, regardless of the disruption and fatigue.

Please note, I'm not asking anyone to break OpSec and tell me to attack or not. I just want suggestions and opinions based on the information at hand regarding launching another attack. Is the tactical situation favourable? The way I look at it, everything hinges on capturing Sydney and I am willing to lose assets to take it. The minefield at Sydney is substantial and I may suffer a lot of collateral damage, but taking Sydney right now is everything. I caught Bullwinkle's thread looking for a quote and it totally applies to my situation right now.

"If you start to take Vienna - take Vienna"

I need to mull this over and decide whether to go all out, or risk delaying a day resulting in Sydney being reinforced.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

RE: Sydney

Disruption and fatigue in the mid-teens is great! My typical cut off for a consecutive attack is high-30s fatigue and higher than 25 disruption, although I will weigh my options... if the units don't have a lot of disabled devices that would be destroyed, then I might still attack. I definitely won't attack if fatigue is 50-60 and disruption is 40+. Mid-teens says to me that you should attack again. His units are likely in worse shape, especially considering the casualties.

I think you just need maybe 2 more attacks and Sydney is yours. That would be amazing.

Would you go all out, air and naval bombardments followed by an assault? Would you go deliberate or shock? My experience with consecutive ground attacks has not been good, regardless of the disruption and fatigue.

Please note, I'm not asking anyone to break OpSec and tell me to attack or not. I just want suggestions and opinions based on the information at hand regarding launching another attack. Is the tactical situation favourable? The way I look at it, everything hinges on capturing Sydney and I am willing to lose assets to take it. The minefield at Sydney is substantial and I may suffer a lot of collateral damage, but taking Sydney right now is everything. I caught Bullwinkle's thread looking for a quote and it totally applies to my situation right now.

"If you start to take Vienna - take Vienna"

I need to mull this over and decide whether to go all out, or risk delaying a day resulting in Sydney being reinforced.

I haven't been reading the other AAR (from posts it seems like there is one).

I wouldn't shock. You got good results in the 1:1 - better damage to his troops than you took, and your disruption/fatigue are in OK shape. The only thing that would stop me from attacking again with a deliberate attack is if I had a large portion (more than 1/3 or more than 1/2) of my infantry squads in my main combat units disabled.

I could go either way on the aerial/naval bombardments. Sydney has CD guns, so I'm not sure naval bombardments would do all that much to the combat troops. Aerial bombardments are a crap shoot, but at least they'd burn up supply... but I would probably rather save my planes. If you bomb anybody, I'd bomb the reinforcements coming in. If bombing them delays them, that buys you more time to do the attacks you need to take the city.

I don't think a second attack will capture the place, although you might get lucky. I'd double-check my LCU leaders and go for the absolute best I could get. I think a third attack would probably do it, assuming the second attack goes much like the first.


Edit: Oh, and assuming your second attack drops forts to 0, that's when I would bomb the airfield a bit. You wouldn't need to hit it all-out, but you would need to hit it some to prevent forts from going back to 1. Level 1 forts are extremely easy to build, but level 1 to level 2 takes 2 or more days unless you have a large stack of engineers. I don't think he does, given the units there.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

1:1 at Sydney is certainly a good thing.
...I won't comment on whether you should attack tomorrow or not ...

+1

Crap shoot. High risk. If Sydney is still blocked, maybe rest on turn and then go. He took ~175 AV loss that turn. His morale will still be low so he won't recover disablements nearly as fast as you.
So he will be ~440 AV in two turns. The only way for you to get to 1800AV that turn would be to shock. If you drop the forts to 0, reasonable then at 2:1 you win. But really tight ... I would not shock until your blockers fall ... then you have to.

With just deliberate attacks, you likely take Sydney on your 3rd overall attack (2 from now), so 4 turns. Can your blockers hold 4 turns?

KB has to stay to provide CAP ... you cannot afford to have disablements due to LBA ...