5 replies to this topic

[jwsleser]

This is an AAR of first of several prep games to prepare to play DTMB. Ship are 1:2400 GHQ.

 

v/r Jeff

 

https://themanchuria...ttle-of-25-may/

[Mark Hinds]

Interesting.  MH

[W. Clark]

Warms my heart to see someone playing DTMB. If you like naval campaigns and WWII Naval Campaigns in the Pacific, then IMHO it is very hard to top DTMB.  And whoever was commanding the Allied cruisers is who I want on my tactical team in a game. That is the best daylight gunnery by an Anglo/American cruiser force that I've seen in some time. I very much look forward to seeing more AAR from you in the future. I've posted several articles on DTMB play in the DTMB Forum that apply to both sides and may give you some ideas about how to get the most out of the forces you command in the campaign. 

 

Good Luck & Good Hunting

 

WMC

[jwsleser]

Thank you for the encouragement Mr. Clark (I decided not to try and guess what the W stands for). Our next game is this upcoming Saturday (27 June). I should have the AAR written up by Monday or Tuesday following. 

 

I reread my AAR posts severals times after they are posted. I always catch typos, unclear subjects, and wrong tenses that I missed in my initial work. Wow, there was quite a few doozies in that AAR. Fixed. 

 

Both my wargaming partner in crime and I have had a life-long interest in the DEI campaign. It is a campaign that I have studied for decades. So much potential lost through politics, wrong priorities, ignorance of the enemy, and just plain bad luck. It will be interesting to see if one of us can do better (I will be playing the Japanese as my fellow gang-member is an avid Anglophile). 

 

v/r  Jeff

[W. Clark]

IMHO there was nothing that that the UK, her dominions or the US was going to or even able to do in late 41, early 42 to change the scenario from what it was given their other problems at the time. And of course, the Dutch were extremely limited in their immediate choices because of the many choices they had made going back to 1908. The real problem IMHO is that while the Dutch navy saw the DEI as Japan's target starting right after the Russo-Japnese war, (after all they were going to be expected to defend the DEI) the legislature did not. They were confident that the Japanese would go after Siberia (after all, who would attack the Dutch when the Russians were available instead) instead and remained so right up to Kalkin Gohl. That is when you see additional expenditure for the navy accepted. Keep in mind that they had let maintenance go on their cruisers and destroyers (the state of the Java class is the proof of that) and had let the numbers of sailors dwindle until they did not have enough crews to man what they had (Sumatra was minimally crewed with reservists and naval cadets as an example). Siberia did not require the Dutch to spend money on defense and not spending money on defense was near and dear to their hearts (IMHO) so they went with Siberia until it was absolutely crystal clear that Siberia was off the plate. Then realizing that the navay was correct, they started making preparations for a defensive war with Japan in 1943 or there abouts. Of course, Japan was early to the party and all their what ifs went out the window and they were stuck with their actual preparations (or lack thereof).

 

A ground defense was out of the question. The Dutch army was more of an occupying force than anything else. That is because the Dutch made no effort to turn non-Christian Indonesians into citizens and considered them subjects instead. The Ambonese and a few select others had more standing and they fought but they were only about 20% of the population at most. I don't know what the Dutch would have had to do or when they had to start doing it to change the indigenous people of the DEI into Dutchmen but as they never made any real effort to do so the point is moot. That means it was all on the navy and the navy was inadequate. They also walked a tightrope diplomatically between the UK, the US and Japan. Every time either of the Allies tried to talk about what a common defense might look like, the Dutch shut them down to not offend the Japanese. Nevertheless, the Dutch fully expected the UK and the US to show up in with everything they had if the DEI was attacked. When you look at the interview between Admiral Hart, Helfrich (RNN) and Starkenborg (DEI Governor) the sense of delusion and entitlement becomes clear. Given what controlled preparations and what commanded the result is no surprise. 

 

There are many possible choices that the Dutch could have made differently but chose not to (primarily IMHO due to cost). The Dutch wanted the economic advantages their empire provided, they also wanted to spend that wealth on anything but the ability to defend what provided it and so they lost it all.

 

WMC 

[W. Clark]

Dave Franklin (the author of DTMB) and I had very similar ideas and opinions on this campaign. His ability to express them in a clear and concise way far exceeded my ability to do so and I recognized that from the start as soon as I had seen his rough draft of the rules. That is not to say that we had no disagreements, but they were minor at most. I wanted a strictly naval campaign, no land combat, no excessive attention to mine warfare and subs and other such items kept to a minimum. DTMB historically, checked every box. The only extended land combat was the Japanese drive south down the Malay peninsula and Dave's Singapore Index handles that perfectly IMHO. We also were in agreement that the ANZAC Squadron was as an Allied naval reinforcement necessary for play balance and thus it was included from the start. We did not let the historical fact that the US was completely against such a reinforcement (and the Australians were not going to counter the US on this) restrain us from including it. We gave the Allies every chance to "Shanghai" additional naval units from the various convoy escorts that arrived with what equipment the Allies were willing to expend in defense of Singapore and the DEI. It costs you CDs (out of the 4 you get per GT) and VP to take these reinforcements, but they really help you to counter the IJN's overwhelming strength in eight-inch cruisers. So, Mauritius and Emerald for the RN; Pensacola and Phoenix for the USN are very real additions to your cruiser strength (although Emerald and Pensacola are 1 turn additions). You also need to roll the right Theater Event to get them, and the odds are not in your favor.

 

Dave's method for dealing with the Japanese land-based air covers both its constant presence and limits its effectiveness while giving it the ability to wreck you if the die rolls go its way. Groundings, being mined and sub attacks are all theater events and resolved with a die roll(s). You don't need to dwell on them, but they can really screw you if the die roll goes against you. Allied LBA is a theater event and replicates its historical minor irritant quality quite nicely. Japanese light cruisers and everybody's destroyers play their parts, but it really gets down to surface engagements between IJN heavy cruisers and Allied cruisers. In fact, it almost always gets resolved by who wins in the Java Sea on game turns 5 and 6. The exception is if the RN manages a successful torpedo ambush of the WAF before Singapore falls. The odds of that happening are long but I've seen it twice now, so in my experience it can happen. This all applies to the standard start. As soon as you add capital ships you begin to weigh the campaign in the Allied favor IMHO. The primary reason for that is that they are all great cruiser killers and when the Allied capital ships go away, so do the Japanese capital ships (per the RAW). If the Japanese have suffered any significant losses to their heavy cruisers from Allied capital ships, then their ability to win against the Allied cruisers has been significantly depleted IMHO. For play balance I would greatly recommend exchanging Force X (the Free French) for the ANZAC Squadron if any Dutch capital ships options are taken. The French shoot about on par with the IJN (so a down grade compared to the RN CRT), their torpedoes are good but not as good as the RN (they have more of them), their night acquisition is not as good as the RN and they have no radar. They have the same 2 GT delay as the Dutch when combining with other Allies. But they come with three destroyers of their own (they also have 3 poorly protected heavy cruisers and their light cruisers do not rapid fire). 

 

It is a great (if not the best) campaign as I have ever seen. But its best attribute IMHO is the fact that weather and set up die rolls can vary things so much that both sides could make the exact same campaign moves ten campaigns in a roll and you would not realize that from reading the AARs if it was specified. I could play the standard start option until the cows came home and still not be bored with the campaign in the least. I'm fully expect you to really enjoy the campaign and look forward to having the opinion vindicated by your AARs.

 

Also, let me recommend Tom Womack's "The Allied Defense of the Malay Barrier 1941-1942" for additional reading. Womack took the time to learn to read Dutch so he could use Dutch sources and not rely on just English-speaking sources. It makes for a more rounded telling IMHO.

 

WMC