Page 43 of 47
RE: BANKOK Annihilated
Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 1:15 pm
by Gen.Hoepner
No hope of a Bombard mission against Rangoon with a good bunch of big guns?
If you can get close enough without being discovered, He'll not have the time to get the heavies to naval attack....
No way...he has something like 1000 planes between Akyab,Mandalay,Rangoon and Moulmein. He will spot me even before i can spell the word " dog". Plus, my BBs are getting their upgrades in Japan....no, it's too late for this kind of actions.
Also Rangoon has been heavily mined in the last week( i've spotted many MLs coming and going).
RE: BANKOK Annihilated
Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:07 am
by Gen.Hoepner
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/24/43
Bankok is being hit hard...now every Japanese plane in the area has been moved far away from those monsters.
Simply there are too many of them out there to hope to have a chance....
look at the planes the allies are using...
And consider that i know for sure he has at least 300 more 4Es both in Burma and in Oz which are just sitting..probably regaining morale or fatigue...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Tsuyung , at 37,31
Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 24
Boomerang II x 9
I-153c x 45
No Allied losses
Aircraft Attacking:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Tsuyung , at 37,31
Allied aircraft
Kittyhawk I x 30
No Allied losses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Tsuyung , at 37,31
Allied aircraft
P-40B Tomahawk x 21
No Allied losses
Aircraft Attacking:
21 x P-40B Tomahawk bombing at 2000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Thursday Island , at 49,91
Allied aircraft
Kittyhawk I x 22
P-40E Warhawk x 37
No Allied losses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Exmouth , at 11,86
Allied aircraft
Brewster 339D x 23
P-38G Lightning x 48
No Allied losses
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Bangkok , at 29,39
Allied aircraft
Liberator VI x 18
P-38G Lightning x 41
LB-30 Liberator x 34
B-24D Liberator x 108
Allied aircraft losses
Liberator VI: 1 damaged
LB-30 Liberator: 2 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 5 damaged
Japanese ground losses:
66 casualties reported
Guns lost 3
Heavy Industry hits 55
Airbase hits 5
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 64
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 56th Division, at 35,90
Allied aircraft
Hudson I x 2
B-17E Fortress x 21
B-24D Liberator x 144
Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 13 damaged
Japanese ground losses:
165 casualties reported
Guns lost 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Kure 6th SNLF, at 83,116
Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 180
SBD Dauntless x 48
TBF Avenger x 12
Hurricane II x 14
Kittyhawk I x 40
T.IVa x 7
P-36A Mohawk x 21
P-400 Airacobra x 63
P-39D Airacobra x 63
P-40B Tomahawk x 21
P-40E Warhawk x 21
No Allied losses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Kure 6th SNLF, at 83,116
Allied aircraft
SBD Dauntless x 27
Swordfish x 10
Kittyhawk I x 13
No Allied losses
RE: BANKOK Annihilated
Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 12:45 pm
by jwilkerson
F4F-4 Wildcat x 180
SBD Dauntless x 48
TBF Avenger x 12
Training up the carrier planes in CBI - now that is different ! Wonder how they will get back and forth - to the carriers ?
RE: BANKOK Annihilated
Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 12:55 pm
by AmiralLaurent
ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
F4F-4 Wildcat x 180
SBD Dauntless x 48
TBF Avenger x 12
Training up the carrier planes in CBI - now that is different ! Wonder how they will get back and forth - to the carriers ?
F4F-4 Wildcat x 180
SBD Dauntless x 48
TBF Avenger x 12
The location is 83, 116... don't know where it is but certainly not in the CBI, probably Solomons or Souther Pacific
RE: BANKOK Annihilated
Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 1:19 pm
by Gen.Hoepner
Yes, those planes are at Suva, where he left one of my SNLF alive for training duties[:(]
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/25/43
Bankokm is now, after the 4th day of bombings, a smoking hole in the Indochina ground[:o]
Nothing much newer on other fronts. Soon he'll start bombing Solomons and NG.
Tomorrow we'll attack Ichang where 100,000 chinese are starving since august 42
RE: BANKOK Annihilated
Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 10:33 am
by Gen.Hoepner
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/26/43
While Bankok gets pounded every day by hundreds of 4Es that are transforming my HI into a piece of burnt dust, today the Japanese Armies have conquered another piece of China.
IChang fell at the first attempt. After 1 year since the last great battle of IChang, when my troops had been repulsed by a stiff chinese defence, finally the city has been conquered. We've ordered to behead every single citizen, male,female,childs. None escaped the japanese fury ( and frustration[:D]).
It's been bloody. almost 30,000 japanese died during the first assault, but at the end of the day 133,000 yellow rebels were dead.
Next step: Lanchow!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Ichang
Japanese Deliberate attack
Attacking force 553642 troops, 6275 guns, 195 vehicles
Defending force 97411 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles
Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 5
Japanese assault odds: 15 to 1 (fort level 5)
Japanese forces CAPTURE Ichang base !!!
Japanese ground losses:
26758 casualties reported
Guns lost 565
Vehicles lost 8
Allied ground losses:
133949 casualties reported
*in the picture you can see Japanese 1st Army marching through the ruins of Ichang*

Another victory of Japanese scientists
Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 9:55 am
by Gen.Hoepner
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/27/43
Yes, we made it again!
After the achievement of Tony Ki-61c coming in July 42, now we have the Jack advanced of one month!
From 03-43 to 02-43!!!
Few days and we'l start producing these beauties![;)]
I know the course of war won't change, but at least i'll be able to shoot down some more bastards[:D] Some more american and british families that won't see their beloved childs coming back from the pacific

A new game flaw?
Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:34 pm
by Gen.Hoepner
...look at this.
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/29/43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Hanoi , at 36,37
Japanese aircraft
A6M3 Zero x 11
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 22
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 104
Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 21
F-5A Lightning x 3
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 4 destroyed, 1 damaged
Allied aircraft losses
P-38G Lightning: 1 damaged
F-5A Lightning: 1 damaged
Japanese ground losses:
13 casualties reported
Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 1
Aircraft Attacking:
18 x P-38G Lightning bombing at 2000 feet
3 x P-38G Lightning bombing at 2000 feet
Bombers too high for my sentais...ok...but then they bomb from 2000 fts with GREAT accurancy ( 7 tojos destroyed on the ground) and i cannot even engage them...
Am i really paranoid or this is something that breaks the game!?! How am i suppose to defend my Airfields?!??
RE: A new game flaw?
Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:47 pm
by Cap Mandrake
Gen. Hoepner;
I believe 2000 ft is the game dive bombing release altitude. I beleieve, though am not sure, that they can be intercepted prior to the attack. Are you saying their ingress altitude is to high for your CAP?
RE: A new game flaw?
Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:54 pm
by Gen.Hoepner
Gen. Hoepner;
I believe 2000 ft is the game dive bombing release altitude. I beleieve, though am not sure, that they can be intercepted prior to the attack. Are you saying their ingress altitude is to high for your CAP?
Yes.It's like when the 4Es flies at 36600 fts..."bombers too high for xxx sentai"....
From 36000 fts and above do you think those 20 p-38s could have done that damage to my AF? I don't.
It will be something like night bombings i think....few turns like that ( maybe using 100 p-38s) and my AFs will be full of damaged fighters. Then a big wave of 4Es and everything will be done.
Not funny
RE: A new game flaw?
Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 3:04 pm
by Oleg Mastruko
I do not like house rules but among the rare rules I insist on using is limiting altitude for bombing missions (or all missions) to 20, or 25k feet max.
Above this altitude all sorts of wacky things happen, and it wasn't used realistically in WW2 Pacific.
So, what you got here is P-38 flying in at 36k feet or whatever their setting was, then diving to 2000 feet because all dive bombers go to 2k feet when dive bombing, and most fighters and fighter-bombers will use dive bombing when ordered to bomb. Wacky stuff as I said. You should use a house rule of limiting bombing missions to 20k and it would not happen.
O.
RE: A new game flaw?
Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:32 pm
by String
ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner
...look at this.
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/29/43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Hanoi , at 36,37
Japanese aircraft
A6M3 Zero x 11
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 22
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 104
Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 21
F-5A Lightning x 3
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 4 destroyed, 1 damaged
Allied aircraft losses
P-38G Lightning: 1 damaged
F-5A Lightning: 1 damaged
Japanese ground losses:
13 casualties reported
Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 1
Aircraft Attacking:
18 x P-38G Lightning bombing at 2000 feet
3 x P-38G Lightning bombing at 2000 feet
Bombers too high for my sentais...ok...but then they bomb from 2000 fts with GREAT accurancy ( 7 tojos destroyed on the ground) and i cannot even engage them...
Am i really paranoid or this is something that breaks the game!?! How am i suppose to defend my Airfields?!??
When he keeps doing that, feel free to abuse your A5M6c fighter bombers vs his cv's, as bombers and kamikazes. They carry a decent load (250kg bomb) and have a higher altitude than any allied carrier based AC
RE: A new game flaw?
Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:36 pm
by String
BTW, i think it can be argued that a P-38 swooping down from 36k feet in a dive would be unintercepteable by any current japanese fighter
RE: A new game flaw?
Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:34 pm
by Gen.Hoepner
MC agreed that it's not fair.[:)]
RE: A new game flaw?
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 12:01 am
by AmiralLaurent
ORIGINAL: String
BTW, i think it can be argued that a P-38 swooping down from 36k feet in a dive would be unintercepteable by any current japanese fighter
Well, if a P-38 dives from 36k to 2k feet with bombs there is no need of Japanese interceptor. Most of them will crash at the end because they will be unable to pull up.
GG had never been able to modelize correctly high altitude in his games. WWII Aircraft were able to fly above 30000 feet... in exceptionnal conditions, but certainly not with bombs, or droptanks. And most of them were flying like bricks there, so it was very difficult to keep formation.
The funniest was in BTR when the heavy bombers were set at 33000 feet. No Flak was able to hit them at this alt, and the game saw their alt correctly for Flak fire. But for bombing accuracy, the alt was seen as an integer and limited to 32768 (computer limit) so 33000 = 230 for him and bombs were dropped as if the bombers were on the desk. 0% loss, 100% efficiency.
RE: A new game flaw?
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 6:55 pm
by Gen.Hoepner
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 02/01/43
I'm doing my best to provide a stiff defence of the air-space of Hanoi. More than this i cannot efford. 150 fighters, all with VERY high experience are placed there. I'm sure this will be his next target. I'm expecting the usual carpet bombing.
Everywhere else is very calm.
Do not understand what in the world is he waiting[&:]
Jacks are in production[:D]
Let's see if this brand new fighter can do better than the underpowered A6M....
I'm sorry this AAR became so boring....hope will be some good fightings in the next months...but before the allies will have to waste some time to conquer all my abbandoned bases[8D].
RE: A new game flaw?
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:00 pm
by pauk
ORIGINAL: String
When he keeps doing that, feel free to abuse your A5M6c fighter bombers vs his cv's, as bombers and kamikazes. They carry a decent load (250kg bomb) and have a higher altitude than any allied carrier based AC
Funny. That's exactly what i was planing to do in our canceled game when your B-17 started to fly on 36.000 feet.
[;)]
RE: A new game flaw?
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:03 pm
by rtrapasso
MC agreed that it's not fair.
For some reason, this reminds me of the German commander defending a city that the US Army was attacking. The Americans pulled in some 155 mm guns and proceeded to blow apart the pillboxes and other defenses - 1 pillbox, 1 shot. When finally captured, the German commander was livid, saying the 155 weren't fair, and should be outlawed!! The Americans laughed at him...
RE: A new game flaw?
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:47 pm
by String
ORIGINAL: pauk
ORIGINAL: String
When he keeps doing that, feel free to abuse your A5M6c fighter bombers vs his cv's, as bombers and kamikazes. They carry a decent load (250kg bomb) and have a higher altitude than any allied carrier based AC
Funny. That's exactly what i was planing to do in our canceled game when your B-17 started to fly on 36.000 feet.
[;)]
hmh, B-17's were used historically at high enough altitude that zeroes couldn't intercept them, so i think that calling that gamey is pushing it.
RE: A new game flaw?
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:25 pm
by pauk
ORIGINAL: String
hmh, B-17's were used historically at high enough altitude that zeroes couldn't intercept them, so i think that calling that gamey is pushing it.
no offense, i did not call it gamey. IMO, air combat, as AmiralLaurent stated isn't perfectly modeled and it is a really hard to arrange balanced play trough house rules (i guess that would require at least 50 parahraphs
Personally, I have my own personal house rules which i don't announce publicly (same is with ground and naval warfare) - no overstacking air units on AFs (max allowed planes are based on airfield size) and not training my air units attacking empty bases....
The problem is that B17 is overpowered (there are too many of them in the game, bombing results are overrated - even from 36.000 feet, repair rate is too fast...etc) and IMHO i think there is no need for using them in that way. But this is not a place to discuss about that...

.. so arguing with historical arguments in not-historical represented air warfare is not a winner...
Ok, i can live with that and i accept it 100%, but if this happens my opponents should be aware that i will use Zekes for kamikazes at same attitude - above max ceiling of allied planes....
If i thought that was gamey i would ask you to stop this or cancel our game.
It was just bad joke[:)], i think.