Islands of Destiny: RA 5.0 Japanese Side

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

That is exactly what to expect in clear terrain from carpet bombing. If he had come in lower it could have been worse.

Problem is some thing entirely different in my opinion. GG games(and many others) has always had this flaw, mind you its the same from both sides.
No one seems to have much knowledge of what airpower did in terms of casulties and applied common sense to the results.

The carpet bombing pre charnwood caused less than 60 german casulties(yes casulties not deaths) from 468 IIRC 4E bombers. Another thing was french civilians losses.

The 2 pre Cobra bombings casued according to new research from MTBD a max of 500 german casulties(more Allied casulties was casued but that another matter).
Before any one starts to cite Fritz Bayerlein. Spend a few hours research his numbers through out the normandy campaign. Add it up and his divison has been destroyed a few times over. Impressive for a division that has around 14000 man in its divisonal strength in all at aug 1.
Not to talk about the divisional record consistantly disproves his claims and so do writings from other officers in his division.
That from around 1600 4E bombers and 700 1 and 2 engined aircrafts in total 2300. A number bombing both on the 24th and 25th july.


The carpet bombing pre totalize was a 1000 4E bomber sortie tho not all dropped bombs that has to be accounted for too in an combat engine and caused roughly 225 german casulties, again about the same Allied casulties.

Only the bombings pre Goodwood really breaks the mold and we still far far from 15 casulties per sortie.


Here in game 60 bombers cause 911 casulties. Thats 15 casulties per sortie vs the historic rate at around a more realistic 0.1-0.3 per sortie. Off by a factor of 50-1 to 150-1. Then airpower gaines a whole other meaning and impact on the campaigns.



Mind u that the ability too bomb a half a million man chinease army in to submission with a hand full of 2E bomber is just as unrealistic. The ability to causing more casulties from a few hundres of 2E low payload aircrafts in a few weeks, than what the combined allied airforces did through out the normandy campaign. In newest of GG games WiTW these kinda problem persists.


Kind regards,
Rasmus

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

That is exactly what to expect in clear terrain from carpet bombing. If he had come in lower it could have been worse.

I don't know what John expected to come of a sizable movement into a disputed coastal clear hex. I woulda bet you dollars to donuts that the IJA stack would be turned into a pink paste in no time by 4EBs. John's been kvetching about this for half the game-getting LCUs smooshed by uber-4EBs, so I don't understand why those troops were anywhere near there. I also am at a loss to explain the probable nil AAA and LRCAP in that hex. From my perspective, it seems like some things were overlooked and that a cohesive strategic defense on land and sea has not been formed or implemented.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

That is exactly what to expect in clear terrain from carpet bombing. If he had come in lower it could have been worse.

I don't know what John expected to come of a sizable movement into a disputed coastal clear hex. I woulda bet you dollars to donuts that the IJA stack would be turned into a pink paste in no time by 4EBs. John's been kvetching about this for half the game-getting LCUs smooshed by uber-4EBs, so I don't understand why those troops were anywhere near there. I also am at a loss to explain the probable nil AAA and LRCAP in that hex. From my perspective, it seems like some things were overlooked and that a cohesive strategic defense on land and sea has not been formed or implemented.

+1.

This is a game, not a simulation. Counters exist in game, been written about many times, but if you don't avail yourself of them...well, then what else is there to say or type on the subject?

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Walloc

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

That is exactly what to expect in clear terrain from carpet bombing. If he had come in lower it could have been worse.

Problem is some thing entirely different in my opinion. GG games(and many others) has always had this flaw, mind you its the same from both sides.
No one seems to have much knowledge of what airpower did in terms of casulties and applied common sense to the results.

The carpet bombing pre charnwood caused less than 60 german casulties(yes casulties not deaths) from 468 IIRC 4E bombers. Another thing was french civilians losses.

The 2 pre Cobra bombings casued according to new research from MTBD a max of 500 german casulties(more Allied casulties was casued but that another matter).
Before any one starts to cite Fritz Bayerlein. Spend a few hours research his numbers through out the normandy campaign. Add it up and his divison has been destroyed a few times over. Impressive for a division that has around 14000 man in its divisonal strength in all at aug 1.
Not to talk about the divisional record consistantly disproves his claims and so do writings from other officers in his division.
That from around 1600 4E bombers and 700 1 and 2 engined aircrafts in total 2300. A number bombing both on the 24th and 25th july.


The carpet bombing pre totalize was a 1000 4E bomber sortie tho not all dropped bombs that has to be accounted for too in an combat engine and caused roughly 225 german casulties, again about the same Allied casulties.

Only the bombings pre Goodwood really breaks the mold and we still far far from 15 casulties per sortie.


Here in game 60 bombers cause 911 casulties. Thats 15 casulties per sortie vs the historic rate at around a more realistic 0.1-0.3 per sortie. Off by a factor of 50-1 to 150-1. Then airpower gaines a whole other meaning and impact on the campaigns.



Mind u that the ability too bomb a half a million man chinease army in to submission with a hand full of 2E bomber is just as unrealistic. The ability to causing more casulties from a few hundres of 2E low payload aircrafts in a few weeks, than what the combined allied airforces did through out the normandy campaign. In newest of GG games WiTW these kinda problem persists.


Kind regards,
Rasmus

Yes, you're probably right. But the effects of the atomic bomb attacks in this game are significantly *underpowered* by some standards as well, so give and take.

[zuluhour]

I think you are misinterpreting the results here. example: 911 casualties of which only 30-40 men or 4 squads worth will
will never return to combat. The unit has been temporarily rendered ineffective, true it must/should find cover but is
still very much in play and hardly a cadre per se. Shell shock? dispersals? communications? instant dysentery?

[anarchyintheuk]

For old times, I'd like to add in the apples/oranges argument re casualty expectations . . . defenders entrenched in bocage (apples) vs. attackers moving to contact in open terrain (oranges).

[palioboy2]

Another thing to keep in mind is if the Allied air generals had allowed the heavies to be used in a combat support role they could have become much more effective with it over time. Sure they probably never would have achieved results like those posted above but they could have achieved a higher level of efficiency. And the game doesnt accoubt for troop and supply delays from cut communication network or road ways. And again it is not a simulation, John easily could have stayed out of that base hex and rendered the 4E threat completely void. He choose to march in troops with no AA support or aircover who had no chance to dig in.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
+1.

This is a game, not a simulation. Counters exist in game, been written about many times, but if you don't avail yourself of them...well, then what else is there to say or type on the subject?

We certainly agree in that u hafta play the game as the game is and that JohnIII have IMO made errors in how to deal with the threat/aspect of the game.

That said about the simulation vs game while a discussion is an eternal one. Still if 1 DD was able to kill off 50 enemy DDs in one battle then there would be an outcry and i would bet non would play this game.
So its a game but within setting where of a certain amount of belivebility for all. What exactly that is, ofc differs for different people. Just find it interresting when airforce is equally overpower its sorta accepted and doesnt seem other than 4E vs land seems to be questioned at all.
The ability to more or less destroy 2 div in a turn via airpower has no equal in WWII history as killing 50 DD with 1 neither had.

I gather u need specific amounts of knowledge and very possibly an interrest in the subject to able to see the issue for all it is. All know that airpower was effectfull so question its effect is less certain than a 1 DD vs 50 DD scenario. Just at times seems like the simulation vs game argument is brought on when people dont find a specific issue questionble, where as the same people might have a different threshold in other area and would find for example a 1 DD vs 50 DD an dealbreaker for them. Any how thats how the world is.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Yes, you're probably right. But the effects of the atomic bomb attacks in this game are significantly *underpowered* by some standards as well, so give and take.

True, about the atomic bomb. Just pointing out that the erronus effect airpower has in GG(and many other) games have in particular when it comes to air caused casulties. As it has a effect that has a direct impact on how the land part of the game unfolds, because the magnitude of difference between game and "history". The risk reward equation is very different than what it historicly was. Ppl naturally takes what the game gives them. Not any thing that can supprise any one. My wonder is more in why isnt this questioned more in general.


Kind regards,
Rasmus

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

I think you are misinterpreting the results here. example: 911 casualties of which only 30-40 men or 4 squads worth will
will never return to combat. The unit has been temporarily rendered ineffective, true it must/should find cover but is
still very much in play and hardly a cadre per se. Shell shock? dispersals? communications? instant dysentery?

Not really. If u had a unit with lot of damaged devices those would be permantly destroyed instead of damaged. So that argument comes down to a question of pure chance on what the attacked unit happen to has in number of damaged vs undamaged devices. If the unit in question had alot of damaged devices the number of destroyed(permanent) would be much higher.
As to a disruption effect of airpower is very real and can be/should be reflected in the fatigue and disruption value of an attacked unit.

If u keep bombing the same unit the casulties are very real as u get more and more damaged units that turns into destroyed as damaged devices gets higher and higher. If devices had been "auto" repaired each turn it would be another question, but they arent. How many devices that is damaged/destroyed is a direct effect of number of casulties caused by the bombing and when the magnitude of game vs history is in the disparity it happens to be it has a direct impact on how the land campaign unfolds.
Even if u only damaged devices those devices is still damaged and wouldnt have any AV effect if combat happens after the bombing attack. Those 41 damaged squads is around 1/7-1/8 of a full strength totally undamaged divisions combat squads(not talk bout the 61 non combat ones) that isnt just temporarily(it would take days/weeks of rest to recoup them all) of the unit taken out of combat by 60 4E bombers in a day. Historicly that is unheard of.

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

For old times, I'd like to add in the apples/oranges argument re casualty expectations . . . defenders entrenched in bocage (apples) vs. attackers moving to contact in open terrain (oranges).

If one used the Cobra bombings as the only example it would be a valid argument. All the other carpet bombings in normandy didnt take place in Bocage terrain. In WiTW they happen in what is classified as clear and having personally walked the all the different fields my self i can testify to the fact that the other carpet bombings with the exception Charnwood(u cant walk the field in any meaningfull sense as its been urbanized since WWII) happens in very clear terrain. At leased in the sense that terrain is classified in any board wargame and computer wargame i own.
As the casulties arent significantly different in those than in the Cobra/bocage carpet bombing it doesnt seem to be a very valid argument.

Further as to entrenchment level one should remember that the area's bombed with exception of Charnwood hadnt been frontlines for a necesarily particular long time and the they were certainly "entrenched" as in foxholes, trenches and barbwire but we not talking fort 9 here. The interresting thing historicly is that the largest casulties done by carpet bombing actually happens in town/villages which happen to be the most "fortified" points in the bombing area's. One should ofc note that the density of troops in the those particular area's/villages has an direct effect on the number of casulties.

ORIGINAL: palioboy2

Another thing to keep in mind is if the Allied air generals had allowed the heavies to be used in a combat support role they could have become much more effective with it over time. Sure they probably never would have achieved results like those posted above but they could have achieved a higher level of efficiency. And the game doesnt accoubt for troop and supply delays from cut communication network or road ways.

Possibly, but u couldnt equally argue that they didnt get any better in the carpet bombings they did. Also the friendly casulties caused created parameters in which carpet bombings had to happen. The parameters was set up by those generals because of the fear of that, which in it self and had an impact that made them less not more effective.
We certainly agree that disruption effect should be high. Incidently the wrecked roads and in teh case of Caen city created problem for the bombing side too. Yeah that some thing that hard to show in games, just pointing out its not all clear cut.



Last the focus seems to be on carpet bombing and 4E bombers, but the disparity in game vs historic casulties is in the same magnitude for 2E bombers(for both sides) so its not just a question of use of 4E aircrafts.


Kind regards,
Rasmus

P.S /Highjack /off

[adarbrauner]

ORIGINAL: Walloc

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

That is exactly what to expect in clear terrain from carpet bombing. If he had come in lower it could have been worse.

Problem is some thing entirely different in my opinion. GG games(and many others) has always had this flaw, mind you its the same from both sides.
No one seems to have much knowledge of what airpower did in terms of casulties and applied common sense to the results.

The carpet bombing pre charnwood caused less than 60 german casulties(yes casulties not deaths) from 468 IIRC 4E bombers. Another thing was french civilians losses.

The 2 pre Cobra bombings casued according to new research from MTBD a max of 500 german casulties(more Allied casulties was casued but that another matter).
Before any one starts to cite Fritz Bayerlein. Spend a few hours research his numbers through out the normandy campaign. Add it up and his divison has been destroyed a few times over. Impressive for a division that has around 14000 man in its divisonal strength in all at aug 1.
Not to talk about the divisional record consistantly disproves his claims and so do writings from other officers in his division.
That from around 1600 4E bombers and 700 1 and 2 engined aircrafts in total 2300. A number bombing both on the 24th and 25th july.



Kind regards,
Rasmus

Rasmus, by heaven's sake, please, provide the sources; books, articles, web sites etc.

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

That is exactly what to expect in clear terrain from carpet bombing. If he had come in lower it could have been worse.

ORIGINAL: Walloc
Problem is some thing entirely different in my opinion. GG games(and many others) has always had this flaw, mind you its the same from both sides.
No one seems to have much knowledge of what airpower did in terms of casulties and applied common sense to the results.


That's exactly my point, Gents.

To eliminate "ground carpet bombing" from the game, current conditions pending, by a home rule limiting the bombing height (5? 6? 7 k feet?); so that from a blind "carpet" bombing of an area, you have the direct target sighting;

the attacker though, have to suffer the blunt of it either...

ORIGINAL: Walloc

In WiTW they happen in what is classified as clear and having personally walked the all the different fields my self i can testify to the fact that the other carpet bombings with the exception Charnwood(u cant walk the field in any meaningfull sense as its been urbanized since WWII) happens in very clear terrain.

How does Verdun looks like today?

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: palioboy2

Another thing to keep in mind is if the Allied air generals had allowed the heavies to be used in a combat support role they could have become much more effective with it over time. Sure they probably never would have achieved results like those posted above but they could have achieved a higher level of efficiency. And the game doesnt accoubt for troop and supply delays from cut communication network or road ways. And again it is not a simulation, John easily could have stayed out of that base hex and rendered the 4E threat completely void. He choose to march in troops with no AA support or aircover who had no chance to dig in.

I agree. It does not take time to develop a tactic efficiently if that is what they are going for. Massed box bombing vs units in open terrain. I suppose if the will was there there would be a way. The Allies opted to use their bombers against strategic targets for many reasons. In the end, this was probably the better use for them. But that is not to say that massed tactical bombing of enemy troops with little or poor AA assets from mid to low altitudes would not have been effective. The Americans did just that in Vietnam using saturation bombing with B52s. (but from higher altitudes) when it was found that there really were no other targets.

The few times they did it in Europe met with mixed results but like I say the attacks were the exception so no real doctrine or tactical proficiency existed. If they were doing it every day vs the Japanese, I suspect they would have gotten very good at it. Just speculating.

Keep in mind that Japanese players frequently use massed land bombing attacks to prepare assaults early in the game. I have seen my opponents use 200 medium bombers to thoroughly disrupt my troops and and then easily defeat them in battle. Could the Japanese have really done this? Probably not vs any troops but the Chinese-given the sorry bomb sights they possessed and the inability of Japanese bomber to stand up to even moderate AA. Put these two scenarios side by side and I would say the Allied 4E scenario is more believable. So game on.

[adarbrauner]

-

[palioboy2]

This is exactly how I feel. Both sides do things that historically weren't done but very well could have been. Japan never used a convoy system or set up a complex anti submarine network but every decent Japanese player does that in WiTP and who is to the say the Japanese couldn't have in real life if that was something they deemed important.

[adarbrauner]

Chris (?) Sutton: nothing to contest; I'd home rule against Japanese carpet bombing as well.

The aerial carpet bombings phases in Charmwood, Totalize and Cobra operations (but there was also Goodwood + smaller others involving heavy bombers carpet bombing right?), as mentioned by learned Rasmus, were performed by formations of heavy bombers numbered from 800 to 1200 circa, during day and in close to perfect weather and visibilty conditions;

I don't know/remember unfortunately the altitude, but if I well recall an arial picture of a RAF bomber over the target site of Totalize (the second of the 2 ops, right?), I'd evaluate it at 10-12000 feet (3-4 KMs) altitude (I may be wrong).

The target for each formation was a very well defined and not-so-big (don't recall/remember the size) area; in the case of Goodwood and Totalize the area was chosen not so much close to front line also to avoid friendly casualties; not so in the case of the american sector (with all the tragic consequences), for many reasons related in particular by the air force requests to keep a safer approaching path originating from behind the line rather than the riskier front-line-following one asked by ground officers to avoid friendly fire.

The purpose of these bombardments was to neutralize all enemy's strenght in that very well defined area, so that to minimize resitance and casualties to the attackers;

by all recollections I read, the aerial attacks had devastating, doomsday-like effects in all the affected areas;

much discussion though persists regarding the effects on the overall German defensive dispositive in the interested sector; in facts German defense remained more or less deadly and stiff particuarly in the English sector around-south of Caen: attackers casualties remained high, and not all the projected results achieved once again; not so in the american sector, where a total breakthrough occured in the previously deadly and stiffly contested bocage environment; but even in this case is opposed and contested that the German dispositive there was thin-spread on the front line, no tactical reserves available at all and no in depth defense behind (if I am not wrong);

I think all agree that the disruption caused to all units invested by the aerial bombings was total; recalls tell of complete shock, even for veterans from the eastern front, vehicles, even medium-heavy tanks covered or buried by earth or capsized, lunar ladscape and such;

much discussion instead regarding the effective losses and casualties, as Ramsus and Zuluhour have pointed out;
and, in the case of the american bombardments, painfull, undesired and surprisingly heavy friendly losses ( a ballad was composed by men in the field, saying " when the RAF strikes, Germans duck; when the Luftwaffe strikes, Allies duck; when the USAAF strikes, all duck"...)

My point is: what if the attacking side is targeting an area (which is, remember, in spite of the great number of heavies involved, always circumscribed and small) without many enemy units in it, if at all (as it happened sometimes in Normandy)?

In game the hexagon is , my gosh, 40 MILES (for "us" Europeans 60 Kms?) wide, oh my..., which could be happily filled by ONE company or battalion, up to regiments and division, I mean...

Distance from Caen to Sword beach was, how much, 6 miles, by crow's flight?

Ok you may say DL, DL! But still... come on.

I feel that as long as the actual land combat model and interface remains inadequate to deal with a scale greater than that of an atoll or small sized island, something has to be done tp absorb or correct out of proportion or not otherwise not plausible results;

[Mike McCreery]

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

I feel that as long as the actual land combat model and interface remains inadequate to deal with a scale greater than that of an atoll or small sized island, something has to be done tp absorb or correct out of proportion or not otherwise not plausible results;

It is a game, not a simulation. The tactic can be countered by heavy AA in the hex.

[adarbrauner]

ORIGINAL: Wargmr




It is a game, not a simulation. The tactic can be countered by heavy AA in the hex.

Still too many casualties; too much broad application; if you give me a mod with sensibly higher Japanese AA units and guns (+ maybe upgrade to 37 mm fast firing), so maybe...

[Lecivius]

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

ORIGINAL: Wargmr




It is a game, not a simulation. The tactic can be countered by heavy AA in the hex.

Still too many casualties; too much broad application; if you give me a mod with sensibly higher Japanese AA units and guns (+ maybe upgrade to 37 mm fast firing), so maybe...

Only if you give me back realistic Japanese R&D, realistic production on both sides, working torps (remember, no one knew they didn't work at the time), reducing Japanese air torp accuracy....

It's a game.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

ORIGINAL: Wargmr




It is a game, not a simulation. The tactic can be countered by heavy AA in the hex.

Still too many casualties; too much broad application; if you give me a mod with sensibly higher Japanese AA units and guns (+ maybe upgrade to 37 mm fast firing), so maybe...

As has been discussed MANY times, before many posters were in the forum, the abstractions in the game models preclude anything even approaching Allied mastery of the CAS role, especially the use of real anti-armor FBs, napalm, anti-personnel para-frags, and late-war rockets. The Allies can't drop bridges to stop logistics or LCU reinforcements as they did many times in both the PTO and ETO (look at the P-47-led anti-RR campaign pre-Anzio breakout for one example.) In the game the USMC, who became uber-masters of low-altitude, precision CAS in 1944-45 (numerous footage is available on-line), are excluded from this tactic in island warfare.

The Allies are severely restricted in the game as to the ability to surge their air forces. They don't have ground attack from anything BUT 4E and 2E bombers with iron bombs. Critics of this constantly run home to Cobra and 4E while ignoring the massive destruction wreaked by single-engine and dual-engine dedicated FB and fighters in FB configuration. In the game the Mosquito is a meatloaf. Corsairs strafing are laughed at. Put some napalm tanks on the wings and no more laughing. And yeah, you'd get 400 casualties (not KIA) from a division standing in the open against 50 Mosquitos on a low-level run.

The Allied submarine models OTOH? Yeah, they're completely nerfed.

[palioboy2]

Also people talking about how the COBRA bombardment that felvl short devastated American troops, creating heavy friendly fire casualties. And the turn around and say heavy bombers could never create heavy casualties.

They also mention how the airforce wouldn't fly down the front line and instead flew across it, but then act like there weren't ways they could have increased their effectiveness.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn


Has anyone noticed if having radar or sound detection in a hex lessens the bombing impact on the ground units?

I think it does, but I am not sure why or how, perhaps a slight bonus to fortifications, etc.

Also having damage soaks really helps too.

Radar or Sound Detection devices in a hex per se do not lessen the bombing impact on the ground units.

Alfred