Thank you my father was there. Corporal Albert James Stone, 4th Marine Division, 14th Marine Regiment, Radio/Signal Operator. He survived Iwo Jima thereafter. At the same time, my Uncle was serving on Normandy beaches. My father always said the real heroes of these battles were the men that died.
Hell yeah you did. I was actually scared those first two rounds the game would "shut down" too early. Probably whhy I didn't bleed off that naval gunfire support like I should have. Those barrages tend to shift further inland as friendly infantry is put ashore.
Fantastic table, scenario design and battle report! Appreciate the extra time you took in editing and narrating this AAR - focusing on the overall flow of the battle without getting bogged down in rules mechanics and dice rolls. Your review of the historical battle plan also provides valuable context; as bloody as this fight is, it represents a single sector of a single landing zone. It's amazing to think about the planning, training and logistics needed to attempt amphibious assaults like this. Well done!
Wow, thanks very much for the very positive comment. Yes, I agree that the logistical planing, sealift capacity, and Marine/Army doctine and training were incredible here in the Pacific campaign. By comparison, the Overlord Normandy landings went across 90-100 miles of water, the Marianas invasion went over 1500 miles. Glad you like the history part of the intro, as well! Thanks again!
@@JamesJohnson-wq6bs Would love to see more Pacific wargames! The Battle of Edson's Ridge is a much smaller engagement, but played a pivotal role in the Guadalcanal campaign. Just a suggestion!
@@markhenderson6389 - I agree, the Pacific needs more attention in World War II gaming. I think I actually tried an Edson's Ridge scenario once, using Barry Doyle's Valor & Victory system. Wasn't a game that went up on our channel though. What we're seieng so far with this video, however, is that Pacific scenarios often aren't as popular, and don't get the best view count, sadly.
Great game, guys. They other D-Day gets more press because it's the nice one. This one is just nasty. Rather than one page rules, they could perhaps be called brutal sheet rules. I must admit the Pacific has no game table draw for me, but I do study it. Most of our guys would have issues with getting a handle on Japanese tanks. I think they are better described as light infantry support tanks. Just as you say, all their equipment was designed for a war that should have been fought in the 20's or earlier 30's at the latest. Their equipment do compare well to British equipment of the 20's. Their attitude needed some adjustment. One sword is worth 30 rifles, really. In war learning costs a lot of blood. At Saipan, the US had much learning to do. In all fairness, most of the learning concerned the Pacific. Currents, tides, lagoons, and updated naval maps. A couple of years ago, when our group took a deep into Normandy, they became very interested in the assault from the sea. Such as beaches and waves. Such as the combinations of men and equipment for each wave. An accountant, a few years ago, looked at rounds fired of all types of AAA to aircraft destroyed in the air. In the Pacific, you needed to fire 47,000 rounds to destroy 1 aircraft. So I'm looking forward to part 2, where I suspect brutal is about to go into high gear.
Yeah, the Japanese Army in World War II (in my opinion) has a bit of an inflated reputation. Despite their undeniable resolve, not just in combat courage but "operational courage" (fight and march on a handful of rice a day) ... their officers, training, and especially equipment and weapons fell well short of the mark. As you say, more in a 20s or early 30s level ... fought of course starting in 1937 but in China, hardly a technological or industrial juggernaut in those days. And yes, the low "damage effectiveness" of AA is because I expected those 25mm batteries to do more work against Marine GROUND targets. So to keep the game simple and avoid having two numbers to hit, I kept the same number to hit for both ground and airborne targets, and just a tougher damage number for aircraft. An abstract solution, but as you know I'm one of those game designers that DOESN'T read "abstract" as a dirty word. Thanks for the great comment
