Japan '45 Historical Plan/Placement Olympic

[wiggum]

Great AAR thanks !

[ComradeP]

An overview of the initial opposition.

Name, unit quality for infantry/tanks and engineer/recon/cavalry units, type of infantry units (their stats are in an earlier post), battalion-sized units in the division.

There's another independent brigade at the north-eastern map edge, and another division at the north-western map edge, but it will take them days to get to the front.

The hexes south of Shibushi Bay that are not in the screenshots don't contain enemy units other than Coastal Defense guns (and partisans later on).

[Plain Ian]

Yes these are great maps. Also an insight into the planning of a battle which is really a mini campaign? The US plan sounds pretty inflexible but I guess the Normandy landings were just the same. 

The thing that strikes me is that the game seems to be a WW1 meatgrinder? Break though the enemy trenches to the 'green fields beyond'. Except that is not going to happen in this game. Plus the enemy doesn't give up and only deficiency the Japanese have are low soft attack factors? 

How are Japanese HQ ranges? Maybe if they were shorter then their units would reduce the possibility of disruption recovery?

[ComradeP]

The Japanese and US forces have regimental HQ's with an unmodified range of 5 and divisional HQ's with an unmodified range of 10.

US Corps HQ's have an unmodified range of 15, US Army HQ's have a range of 20. The Army HQ range in particular hurts quite a bit as it means Corps HQ's have to be fairly close to the Army HQ. Surprisingly, all my Army corps HQ's are just C quality, as is Sixth Army. The V Marine Amphibious Corps is A quality.

Japanese Army HQ's have a range of 50, and their Area Area HQ has a range of 75.

It does seem the Japanese side receives some bonuses to make them fight better than they would probably have historically: higher speed rating, high quality 2nd Line units, increased Defense and Assault ratings.

The drawbacks of the Japanese Army, like having limited infantry weapons, are largely mitigated through increases in other stats.

I can understand a higher Defense rating and perhaps a small bonus in quality, but 2nd Line A or B quality units do seem a bit much.

One thing that is worth emphasizing about the fighting in the Pacific is that US casualty rates were high because the Japanese often fought to the last man and bullet. That also meant the Japanese tended to lose (nearly) their entire force on an island that was being invaded.

Even with US infantry being rotated in and out, the C&C elements in many of these formations would've been familiar with Japanese tactics.

The majority of the Japanese divisions, if not all of them, have never fought against a properly equipped Western army.

The quality and assault ratings are not consistent with the rest of the series, and I wonder how the McNamara database could generate such high Assault values for Japanese units lacking submachine guns, flamethrowers and other assault equipment, and semi-automatic rifles. Giving them a small bonus for infiltration tactics and zealous assaults, so 12 or so instead of 10, would be OK, but 16 to 18 does seem high.

In FWWC, French and Russian units that were doctrinally supposed to be mostly assaulting have higher Assault ratings but a penalty in one or more other statistics, like Defense or Soft Attack. The Japanese receive bonuses.

The Japanese face mediocre to poor supply, but with regimental HQ's it's fairly easy to keep a HQ close enough to pass the second supply check most of the time.

It's a good game thus far, but the Japanese do seem to be a bit too good.

[ComradeP]

A look at the terrain. Prepare for some 1990's graphics!

As mentioned in another thread, the game uses Field graphics for Rice Paddies in 2D view. The paddies do show up in 3D view. Forests are also easier to spot.

The in-game terrain per landing zone, followed by a satellite image.

USMC:

Satellite image looking east, the mountain in the top right is Mt. Sakurajima across the bay from Kagoshima, the two dark brown hexes opposite Kagoshima in the Southern Kyushu overview image I posted earlier.

The mountain in the top left is Mt. Kirishima, the brown area at the top of the Southern Kyushu overview image.





Shibushi Bay:

Satellite image looking north. Mt. Kirishima is visible in the top left.





Miyazaki sector:

Satellite image looking west. The central mountain is Mt. Kirishima again.

[ComradeP]

Turn 8 start, second night turn.

The USMC has evicted the 303rd Division from the ridge and has isolated some companies.

The USS Springfield, a cruiser, has withdrawn from the Miyazaki sector.

Due to the optional rules we're using, small units are difficult to kill, which is why the AT gun platoon on the riverbanks east of Miyazaki is still alive after being pounded for several turns.

No significant action elsewhere.

[ComradeP]

After looking at the map of Kyushu online, I noticed that the Ariake Sea is actually in the north-west of the island.

The bay XI Corps lands in is Shibushi Bay. I've changed that in all posts.

It seems the original US plan, then, was to land in the north-west and south-west of the island. A risky proposition. In that sense, a move to landings in southern Kyushu only makes sense, even though they're unlikely to succeed. Or the planners also mistook the Ariake Sea for Shibushi Bay, which seems unlikely.

[wildb]

If you look at the map at this link:

https://history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacA.../p_113.jpg

It shows Ariake Bay in the south.

This map shows the proposed invasion beaches and units assigned:

https://history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacA.../p_118.jpg

[ComradeP]

I noticed Ariake Bay on several planning maps as well, but it seems to be an American thing.

According to one website, Shibushi Bay was formerly known as Ariake Bay. Considering that there's another body of water called Ariake in the north-west of Kyushu, that's peculiar.

I'll stick to the modern name in case anyone is following the action on a modern map.

[wildb]

The Japanese Encyclopedia indicate that Shibushi Bay used to be called Ariake Wan.

Searching Ariake Wan turned up this site:

This page presents the geographical name data for Ariake-wan in Japan, as supplied by the US military intelligence in electronic format, including the geographic coordinates and place name in various forms, latin, roman and native characters, and its location in its respective country's administrative division.

https://geographic.org/geographic_names/...60&c=japan

There is also this site - 1903 Maritime Survey Map

https://library.ucsd.edu/dc/object/bb2833973h

So far, unable to determine when the name changed.