Intellectus Ex Nihilo (Wal-Mart on Ice)

[BBfanboy]

+1 + ...

[Canoerebel]

You are men of few words. [:)]

[Canoerebel]

7/1/43

Bay of Bengal: Dave pulled his carriers back, so Death Star & The Herd steamed forward, largely without altercations. Enemy subs picked off a cripple or two, Allied ASW picked off an enemy sub, and (most importantly) damage control failed and Hornet went under. That brings the total number of USN carriers lost to three, along with an RN CA, several DDs, two DMs, one AO, and a few merchantmen. Ouch. Against that the Japanese lost a few DDs and a few subs plus the 300 aircraft. My carriers sank with about 200 aircraft. Hopefully, most of those pilots are fine. It cost perhaps 600 PP to buy back the damaged squadrons, another important cost to this engagement.

The Herd basically escaped undamaged (to this point). There were about five or six divisions plus supporting units aboard.

Now comes the period of gloom and, more gradually, the long recovery.

[Anachro]

A bad loss, but not catastrophic. Nonetheless, such events are always painful and you'll have to recover for a bit. Nonetheless, you should still be able to conduct operations on the periphery and advance where he is not or you have LBA. Hopefully, your opponent has lost a lot of good KB pilots.

[Bif1961]

To wax Civil War in 1864, Grant could lose a battle and replace the loses, Cold Harbor comes to mind, but Lee could not afford to lose a single one. You find yourself in the same situation, you as grant of course.

[modrow]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You are men of few words. [:)]

I'd say that's a pleonasm [:D]

Just my 2 cts

Hartwig

[WingCmdr]

Civil War? A statement we read several times in every Civil War book for 50 years now.

Cold Harbor was the ONLY battle Grant regretted.

[jwolf]

Double plus ouch on that carrier battle! [:(] It seems that your description of Dave -- strategically conservative, tactically aggressive -- was right on the money. He is determined to use his key advantages of interior lines and speed, and kudos to him for doing this so well. I would imagine all those high speed runs have inflicted some damage on his carriers, but obviously it was well worth the cost.

I thought that Dave would be set back a lot by taking so long to secure Singapore (and maybe some other key early war targets). But now you in turn will be held back for quite a while (or so I would think?) so for the time being this looks like a good strategic trade for the Japanese. It will be interesting to see how you regroup from this and plan further operations going forward.

Is it possible to see a map of the general area of the carrier battle and how far and how fast Dave moved his fleet?

Finally, kudos to you for taking it like a man and telling the story straight, in spite of the pain. Good luck moving forward.

[BBfanboy]

CR's usual style is to keep very close tabs on KB position and not move unless he knows where it is. But his opponent has kept it hidden by not going for the greatest possible expansion of his empire, and CR had to calculate where KB was likely to be based on fragments of info.

Another player might have stayed back at safe bases for several more months but CR was pressing in several areas, so it didn't take long for a miscalculation to bite. Kudos to CR for the attempt - it keeps the game interesting when things are not static! [&o]

[Canoerebel]

That's a good synopsis, BBfanboy.

1.5 years into the game, I thought I had a good bead on Dave's style. I felt sure he had a meaningful number of carriers in the Pacific. I felt like it was worth the chance. I thought the forces allocated were sufficient to handle the risk. I was wrong.

[Canoerebel]

7/2/43 to 7/5/43

Bay of Bengal: The walking wounded make it to their destination without further hostile encounters. Several carriers and other capital ships are bound for the yards at Capetown. Most of the other ships, including all troop carriers, will reach Colombo tomorrow. Dave loaded up the lanes between the battle scene and Colombo with subs, but my guys went the long way around while Allied ASW sank two or three Japanese subs.

Damage Control: A damaged AE gives up the ghost on the way back to Ceylon, succumbing to moderately-heavy damage, as did CV Hornet a few turns earlier. In my last three games, I've often just wondered - not theorized, not hypothesized, but simply wondered on occasion - whether somehow Allied Damage Control got turned off. Back in UV days, ADC was an immense advantage. It no longer seems so. C'est la vie.

China: The MLR continues to hold; Dave continues to reinforce, especially just outside Changsha, where a couple of hexes are vulnerable; and there's no hope of relief through the medium term after the big invasion collapsed in flames and tears.

SoPac: Allies take Kwajalein. All that remains now are lightly defended Majuro and Maloelap.

Enemy Opportunities? Given his apparent preference for conservative strategic play, I don't think he'll try to reconquer the Marshalls or to conquer the Aleutians. I wonder about Cocos mainly, and perhaps Midway (but not much on that account).

Allied Intentions: The post-carrier-battle-loss funk didn't last quite as long as it usually does, partly because it's mid-1943, so it won't be that long before meaningful reinforcements arrive. I've looked at the ma and have notions as to what may happen next, when and where. But now extra caution must be taken, as another such loss would really setback possibilities.

[Bif1961]

Lee lost battles in 1862 and 1863, Malvern Hill, Sharpsburg and Gettysburg but recovered. However by 1864 he could no longer have that luxury. If the loses had been reversed in this battle Dave would find it very difficult to recover from them, losing 3-4 CVs have 2-3 more heavily damaged, not counting the surface ships sunk and damaged. The Americans at this point of the game start the ever increasing arsenal of Democracy benefit as the Essexs start rolling in as do the CVLs and CVEs. His losses will be made up in 3-4 months where it would be 12-18 months before the Japanese could repair and replace that many fleet carriers lost and heavily damaged, not counting the highly trained and experienced aircrews. The reason I use the civil war for this comparison is I know Dan is a huge civil war buff.

[Canoerebel]

Yeah, I do love the Civil War and the analogies. This may have been Chickamauga from the Union side of things. Tough defeat, scampering back to Chattanooga, have to hole up and absorb some threats, and wait until enough reinforcements arrive to resume the offensive in November 1863.

[WingCmdr]

Lee lost battles in 1862 and 1863, Malvern Hill, Sharpsburg and Gettysburg but recovered. However by 1864 he could no longer have that luxury.

I really need a clarification.

Lee lost Malvern Hill?

What battle did Lee lose in 1862?

Same question for 1863? Gettysburg was a tactical draw.

Sharpsburg was not a loss, more like a tactical reversal.

It's not my thread, but you are clueless about the Civil War!!!!

You need to answer to these affronts to our GREAT GENERAL LEE!!!!




“lose lips sink ships.”

bif1961

[Uncivil Engineer]

ORIGINAL: WingCmdr

Lee lost battles in 1862 and 1863, Malvern Hill, Sharpsburg and Gettysburg but recovered. However by 1864 he could no longer have that luxury.

I really need a clarification.

Lee lost Malvern Hill?

What battle did Lee lose in 1862?

Same question for 1863? Gettysburg was a tactical draw.

Sharpsburg was not a loss, more like a tactical reversal.

It's not my thread, but you are clueless about the Civil War!!!!

You need to answer to these affronts to our GREAT GENERAL LEE!!!!




“lose lips sink ships.”

bif1961

Holy crap! Are we talking about the same Civil War? The one in the US from 1861 - 1865?

Antietam/Sharpsburg was a strategic defeat for Lee - a tactical victory only because of McClellan's incompetence.

Gettysburg was a strategic defeat for Lee - mainly because of Longstreet's lethargy. And a tactical defeat because he couldn't replace the losses. Of course, if Jackson hadn't been shot at Chancellorsville, the whole matter might have ended differently.

No body cares about Malvern Hill - but he lost.

[Miller]

A very nasty set back for you Dan but not bad going 7 or 8 years without a CV battle defeat as the Allies! Max speed runs can be great for surprise, as in this case, however they burn up a ton of fuel and put 5-10 sys points of damage on most of the ships. I think he broke off because of lack of fuel rather than his air losses the day of the battle (he could fly land based Zeros etc to his CVs to make up losses). Are you playing some kind of mod? I've never seen the Judy 4 with its 800kg bomb load this early in a game before....

[Canoerebel]

To my knowledge, we're playing straight Scenario 2.

P.S. Regarding the long road back, the RN CVs will now upgrade, which will increase aircraft capacity to 55. They'll then each take a 36-plane squadron of USN fighters formerly based on the CVs sunk during the clash. By the time the upgrades (and repairs) are complete, at least two more USN CVs will arrive. It's around then - autumn or thereabouts - that I might next consider fighting the enemy straight up.

[Bif1961]

It was not war—it was murder.” This comment, from the Confederate then-Major General Daniel Harvey Hill, was written more than 20 years after the battle of Malvern Hill. It is one of the more famous summaries of a battle to come out of the vast literature on the Civil War.

The American Battlefield Trust's last paragraph summary of the battle states; When the last explosive musket flashes died out after dark, some 8000 men lay dead and wounded across a few hundred gruesome acres. More than 5000 of that number wore gray, victims of one of the most ill-managed and uncoordinated major assaults of the entire Civil War. I think they disagrees with you on who won and was it an important battle on 1 July, 1862.

Antietam aka, Sharpsburg, were 23,000 soldiers were killed, wounded or missing after twelve hours of savage combat on September 17, 1862. The Battle of Antietam ended the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia's first invasion into the North and led Abraham Lincoln to issue the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. Historians noted the Lincoln was eager to have a victory so he could go forward with the Emancipation Proclamation, which help change the reason for the Civil War from reuniting the Union to wiping out slavery. Several European nations Britain, France and Spain were on the verge of recognizing the Confederacy as an independent nation and if the invasion of the North, by Lee had been successful, that recognition would almost certainly been forthcoming. France and Britain would have offered to broker a peace and if the North had refused their overtures, they planned to intervene, with at least breaking the blockade so that cotton could flow freely to Europe and supplies into the Confederacy. By losing the close fought battle, and retreating back into VA this ended the threat and with Lincoln now secure enough to announce the the Emancipation Proclamation, which was signed into law in January, 1863, it force European nations to decide if we support the Confederacy now we are supporting slavery. Antietam had many far reaching consequences in the halls of the White House and Capitol Hill, Richmond and European Capitols. "The Cause of All Nations" Don H. Doyle copyright 2015.

Gettysburg 1-3 July, 1863 was the South's last best hope to win their independence by showing they could not only defend themselves but visit military operations and defeat Northern Armies in the heartland of the North. If he had won the doorway to the Federal Capitol was wide open and the upcoming elections, even if the North was able to hold DC, would have been dramatically affected. Lee was defeated and took the blame for the loss, as a good commander does, and the Army of VA retreated once again across the Potomac never to be a serious threat again, though Jubal early invaded in 1864 more to drawn troops away from Richmond-Petersburg and try to retain the Shenandoah Valley, the bread basket of the south.

I have visited each of these battlefields including the Shenandoah Valley battlefields at least once and Gettysburg 3 times. Reviewing history is much like my 24 year Army Intelligence career, if you have a room with 10 analysts then you have 11 opinions. My comments are not meant to be an affront to the laudable achievements of General Lee, who probably accomplish more with less than any other American general. It is simply to compare and contrast that during war, sides are not always equal and one side can handle more attrition then another and wear down their opponents over time. Captain Hara said for Japan to be successful they would have to sink 3 Allied vessels and their own ship would have to return safely.

However, I think we can disagree without being disagreeable.

[Canoerebel]

Thanks for the Civil War discussion, gents. I'm am knowledgeable about a lot of Civil War history but not an expert about much except a few things mostly tied to Georgia history.

For what it's worth, I don't think foreign intervention was that close. I doubt Sharpsburg would have changed anything. And I think Britain found new sources of cotton, so that there was no real crisis (despite the South's hopes and expectations) as the war drew on.

crsutton had an ancestor that served in a Georgia regiment at Sharpsburg. He shared copies of the ancestor's correspondence a number of years ago. I have it saved in my file, in case I'm ever inclined to write about Sharpsburg or Georgians who were engaged there.

[Simonsez]

Now that would be a treat, you writing about two things you thoruoghly enjoy. I'd buy a copy and I'm a blue-bellied Yankee. [:D]

Put the game down for a couple of years and just fired it back up this past week to refamiliarize myself with it. Playing Scenario 1 vrs. AI Japanese. I'll play into maybe mid to late 42 and then end it and switch sides to do the same thing with the Japanese. I close friend of mine picked up the game last year and maybe I can convince him to play a campaign scenario against me.

Entertaining and insightfull AAR as always.