PDA

View Full Version : AAR Cancon 2013, Day 2, Mission 2 - IJN bombing raid, Port Moresby 1942 (Part One)



Carl_Brisgamer
02-05-2013, 06:27
The second mission for Day 2 at Cancon saw a flight of three Mitsubishi G4M1 bombers escorted by three Mitsubishi A6M2 Zeros raid the Allied airfield at Port Moresby New Guinea. The airfield was to be defended by a flight of four P-40E Kittyhawks of 75 Squadron RAAF. Jon's father Rob and I took two P-40's each, and Jon decided to try out the bombers this time around. His escorts were run by a couple of new players who had joined the table after watching the tail end of the previous engagement.

74057 74058

Due to the large number of AA guns around the target the Bettys kept to altitude level 6, just out of range of the guns. The Zeros started at altitude 7 flying top cover. In a nod to historical accuracy the Australian P-40's started at altitude 5 - a distinct disadvantage but a position the pilots of 75 Squadron often found themselves with inadequate warning of Japanese attack. Rob and I decided to make a climbing turn to try and reach the Bettys before they could drop their bombs. We agreed the bombers were the primary target and we would not go chasing Zeros.

74059

The P-40s kept a tight formation for the first few turns alternatively climbing and banking to the right. The poor climb rate of the P-40 was very much in evidence, and Rob and I got a small taste of the frustration felt by the RAAF pilots defending Port Moresby. Jon kept his Betty bombers on a straight course to the target as the Zeros swooped down on the 75 Squadron Kittyhawks. The result was the two flights passing through each other exchanging fire. Except for one of Rob's pilots who broke formation banking left (oops, wrong card!) There were no collisions as the Japanese fighters were above the Kittyhawks, doing their extra A damage for the height advantage. Both sides took hits, but no aircraft went down...yet.

74064

As the Zeros passed over and banked to starboard in order to come around behind the RAAF fighters Rob's errant P-40 put a telling burst into one of the Japanese aircraft claiming the first victory of the mission. Rob also took some fire from the other Zeros however, and as we became fond of saying 'you see bits fly off!' Again Rob's unexpected turn proved beneficial as the remaining Zeros focused on that P-40 and left the others alone for now.

74065

The rest of 75 Squadron continued their climbing turn, coming in for a rear quarter attack - again not an ideal approach as the beam and dorsal gunners have clear fields of fire. As the P-40's close to firing range keeping their tight formation we will leave the action, more to follow in part 2 of this AAR.

74066

Carl_Brisgamer
02-06-2013, 04:40
Taking up where we left off, three Curtiss P-40E Kittyhawks from 75 Squadron RAAF were straining their 1150hp Allison engines to close with the Japanese bombers before they could releases their bombs over the airfield. Meanwhile the fourth Kittyhawk had turned away drawing off the Zero escorts. One of the Zeros, already badly damaged by a burst from one of my P-40's in the initial exchange crossed the nose of one of Rob's aircraft and was promptly shot down, giving Rob and I a half share each.

74557
"Break Robbo, you've got three Nips on your tail mate!"

74556

Meanwhile the rest of 75 Squadron predictably could not close quickly enough or do enough damage to prevent the Betty's from dropping their bombs. After 'bombs gone' the formation broke up to head for home, and that was their first mistake.

74555

The P-40's concentrated their fire on the last Betty and after several bursts they were rewarded with a bright flash as the fuel tanks exploded and the 'Flying Cigar' lived up to its nickname, Rob claiming the victory.

74554
"Got one Skipper, look at 'im burn!"

74553

The three Kittyhawks kept after the Betty that broke right, leaving the other to exit the board unmolested. Meanwhile the three sticks of bombs exploded with two direct hits and one near miss over the runway causing significant damage to the airfield's facilities.

74552

With the Zeros back on their tail and closing fast the RAAF P-40s made more attacks on the second bomber from the rear quarter attracting more return fire from the dorsal and waist gunners.

74551
"Steady, steady..... RAT-AT-AT-AT-AT-AT!"

74550

With the first Kittyhawk finally doing enough to take out the Betty the Japanese bomber, claiming another victory for yours truly. Unfortunately the trailing Kittyhawks came under sustained fire from the fatally damaged bomber and the pursuing Zeros. Both were shot down, one in flames. Jon and his wingman claimed their first kills of the mission.

74549

With two bombers down and the third pushing forward the throttles as far as they could go the fight now degenerated into a fighter vs fighter stoush, two Zeros against two Kittyhawks.

74548

After a few turns with neither side gaining the advantage the P-40's broke off and dived for home. The battle ended with two Japanese bombers and one fighter shot down at the cost of two Kittyhawks lost. By successfully bombing the objective the Japanese had won a victory, albeit a costly one. This marked the end of Day 2 at Cancon, but the players were keen to come back on Day 3 which would again see IJN bombers and fighters striking a distant Allied target. This time it would be the northern Australian port of Darwin in early 1943, and the defending aircraft would not be P-40s but the famed Supermarine Spitfire Mk.VCs of 1 Fighter Wing RAAF.

Flying Officer Kyte
02-06-2013, 06:18
It makes a really nice change to see you WWII chaps in action.
That was very enjoyable. Thanks.
Rob.

Nightbomber
02-06-2013, 06:33
Great report of a thrilling action, Carl. Beautiful scenery and minis make a movie out of it. Full Mark! The outcome shows the experienced players prevailed over newbies;)

Carl_Brisgamer
02-06-2013, 06:42
It is my pleasure gentlemen, these engagements were alot of fun. I found the chit draw much kinder on day 2 than day 1, and it got better on day 3.

I'll post the final AAR tomorrow.

Cheers,

Carl.

csadn
02-06-2013, 14:38
Meanwhile the rest of 75 Squadron predictably could not close quickly enough or do enough damage to prevent the Betty's from dropping their bombs.

If it was that predictable, perhaps the P-40s should have been given a bit more starting altitude; that, or start the scenario after the bombers have already pickled off.

If the bombers win by bombing the target, and the only way they can lose is by screwing up the bomb-run, well, it's not much of a scenario for the defenders.

Carl_Brisgamer
02-06-2013, 15:15
If it was that predictable, perhaps the P-40s should have been given a bit more starting altitude; that, or start the scenario after the bombers have already pickled off.

If the bombers win by bombing the target, and the only way they can lose is by screwing up the bomb-run, well, it's not much of a scenario for the defenders.

We were re-running an historical engagement. Because the Moresby defenses lacked decent radar at the time the defenders rarely had sufficient warning to gain a height advantage over the Japanese. It actually played out pretty close to the historical outcome.

Whiskysierra
02-07-2013, 02:41
To face the same challenges the RAAF boys did in that scenario is my favourite part about it, to try and play your way out of it and get more a sense of what what they achieved in Port Moresby and Mine Bay.

Carl_Brisgamer
02-07-2013, 03:04
To face the same challenges the RAAF boys did in that scenario is my favourite part about it, to try and play your way out of it and get more a sense of what what they achieved in Port Moresby and Mine Bay.

That was what I was after, the 'feel' of the battles over New Guinea. The book 'Storm over Kokoda' and the chapter 'The 44 Days' in another excellent tome 'Whispering Death' cover the subject very well.

It could have been more realistic if we had been playing in 40 degree heat and all had dysentery, but one must draw the line somewhere.

Whiskysierra
02-07-2013, 03:17
I remember reading 'The Decisive Factor' by David Wilson, another really good book on 75 and 76 sqn.

csadn
02-07-2013, 15:44
It could have been more realistic if we had been playing in 40 degree heat and all had dysentery, but one must draw the line somewhere.

Obviously you never attended some of the Midwestern gaming cons I attended -- dead-of-summer, broken HVAC, and before the time of "Gamers for Personal Hygiene".... :)

As to Strict Historical Accuracy: It has its place -- and that place is in the classroom. I had my fill of "Historic Accuracy" at GenCon in the '90s; the topper being an American Civil War game where in order to damage an enemy the Union player had to roll 7+ on 1d6....

Especially unhelpful here is the game's altitude rules, where gaining an altitude level can take 4-5 *turns*.

I'm running into a bit of this with the research for the 5th AF campaign -- short version is: The Japanese never had a chance; so I'm having to look at ways to get the IJNAF and IJAAF into the fight a bit more.

Marechallannes
02-07-2013, 23:51
Fantastic AAR & pictures, Carl.

That was fun to watch & read.:clap:

7eat51
07-20-2013, 06:05
That is a beautiful setup. Very enjoyable read. :thumbsup:

I think when it comes to playing historically accurate games that make it difficult for one side to have a realistic chance at winning, the value of such a game depends upon the players assembled. I would have no problem playing the losing side if I knew going into the game that we were trying to reenact a battle more to get the feel of it than to try winning. I am not a competitive person in general, though, so the experience of the game and the enjoyment of playing with others trump any concern about winning. It seems to me that the main thing is full disclosure before the game so players' expectations are appropriate.

Carl_Brisgamer
07-20-2013, 07:34
That is a beautiful setup. Very enjoyable read. :thumbsup:

I think when it comes to playing historically accurate games that make it difficult for one side to have a realistic chance at winning, the value of such a game depends upon the players assembled. I would have no problem playing the losing side if I knew going into the game that we were trying to reenact a battle more to get the feel of it than to try winning. I am not a competitive person in general, though, so the experience of the game and the enjoyment of playing with others trump any concern about winning. It seems to me that the main thing is full disclosure before the game so players' expectations are appropriate.

Given this was a participation game and there were no 'sheep stations' at stake I focussed on providing the players historical scenarios where they could test their mettle. I actually prefer to fly historical scenarios and perhaps gain a victory against the odds.

Baldrick62
07-20-2013, 07:39
Given this was a participation game and there were no 'sheep stations' at stake ...

No, for that you need 'Squatter'! Great pics and a great effort Carl.