Panzer Grenadier Battles on November 21st:
Desert Rats #16 - The Panzers Pull Back Desert Rats #19 - The Panzers Return
Desert Rats #17 - The Tomb Of Sidi Rezegh Jungle Fighting #7 - Line Of Departure
Desert Rats #18 - A Pibroch's Skirl South Africa's War #5 - Irish Eyes
Errors? Omissions? Report them!
Milne Bay Scenario 1: Milne Bay - The Landing
Kokoda Campaign #25
(Attacker) Australia vs Japan (Attacker)
Formations Involved
Australia 61st "Queensland Cameron Highlanders" Infantry Battalion
Japan 5th Kure Special Naval Landing Force
Display
Balance:



Overall balance chart for KoCa025
Total
Side 1 0
Draw 1
Side 2 3
Overall Rating, 5 votes
5
4
3
2
1
2.8
Scenario Rank: 845 of 940
Parent Game Kokoda Campaign
Historicity Historical
Date 1942-08-26
Start Time 01:45
Turn Count 12
Visibility Night
Counters 12
Net Morale 2
Net Initiative 0
Maps 1: 35
Layout Dimensions 43 x 28 cm
17 x 11 in
Play Bounty 137
AAR Bounty 159
Total Plays 4
Total AARs 3
Battle Types
Inflict Enemy Casualties
Meeting Engagement
Road Control
Urban Assault
Conditions
Terrain Mods
Scenario Requirements & Playability
Kokoda Campaign Base Game
Introduction

To establish air support and supply bases for the forces fighting on the Kokoda Track, at 2200 on the evening of August 25th the Japanese landed around 500 men on the north shore of Milne Bay. While the bulk of the troops set about establishing a base, a patrol accompanied by two tanks moved west toward the K. B. Mission. At 0145 on the morning of August 26th, the patrol encountered an Australian patrol from 61st Battalion.

Conclusion

Although the light Australian forces had no weapons capable of damaging the tanks, the SNLF patrol was content to engage in a firefight and locate the enemy. Both sides broke off at dawn and returned to report. The mission of peacefully building airfields and support facilities had changed for both Australians and Japanese.


Display Relevant AFV Rules

AFV Rules Pertaining to this Scenario's Order of Battle
  • Vulnerable to results on the Assault Combat Chart (7.25, 7.63, ACC), and may be attacked by Anti-Tank fire (11.2, DFT). Anti-Tank fire only affects the individual unit fired upon (7.62, 11.0).
  • AFV's are activated by tank leaders (3.2, 3.3, 5.42, 6.8). They may also be activated as part of an initial activating stack, but if activated in this way would need a tank leader in order to carry out combat movement.
  • AFV's do not block Direct Fire (10.1).
  • Full-strength AFV's with "armor efficiency" may make two anti-tank (AT) fire attacks per turn (either in their action segment or during opportunity fire) if they have AT fire values of 0 or more (11.2).
  • Each unit with an AT fire value of 2 or more may fire at targets at a distance of between 100% and 150% of its printed AT range. It does so at half its AT fire value. (11.3)
  • Efficient and non-efficient AFV's may conduct two opportunity fires per turn if using direct fire (7.44, 7.64). Units with both Direct and AT Fire values may use either type of fire in the same turn as their opportunity fire, but not both (7.22, 13.0). Units which can take opportunity fire twice per turn do not have to target the same unit both times (13.0).
  • Demoralized AFV's are not required to flee from units that do not have AT fire values (14.3).
  • Place a Wreck marker when an AFV is eliminated in a bridge or town hex (16.3).
  • AFV's do not benefit from Entrenchments (16.42).
  • AFV's may Dig In (16.2).
  • Closed-top AFV's: Immune to M, M1 and M2 results on Direct and Bombardment Fire Tables. Do not take step losses from Direct or Bombardment Fire. If X or #X result on Fire Table, make M morale check instead (7.25, 7.41, 7.61, BT, DFT).
  • Closed-top AFV's: Provide the +1 modifier on the Assault Table when combined with infantry. (Modifier only applies to Germans in all scenarios; Soviet Guards in scenarios taking place after 1942; Polish, US and Commonwealth in scenarios taking place after 1943.) (ACC)
  • Tank: all are closed-top and provide the +1 Assault bonus, when applicable

Display Order of Battle

Australia Order of Battle
Army
  • Foot
Japan Order of Battle
Imperial Japanese Army
  • Mechanized
Imperial Japanese Navy
  • Foot

Display AARs (3)

Can't Touch This
Author wleonard1
Method Solo
Victor Japan
Play Date 2016-04-21
Language English
Scenario KoCa025

A company of Japanese SNLF troops marches down a jungle trail to a village where it faces a company of Australian Militia. But there is something extra in this scenario. The Japanese force also includes a reduced [platoon of T-95 tanks. Worse news for the Australian defenders - they have no antitank weapons, and by scenario special rule, even assault combat cannot inflict a step loss or morale check on the tank. All the Australian player can do is prevent the tank from leaving an assault hex. In this scenario, the Australians try to fight a delaying action along the trail east of the village and are successful at holding the tank in a series of assault hexes. But facing a morale deficit and Japanese assault column shifts, the Australians start to lose steps in the assaults and just run out of troops two turns before the end, ending up with an iverwhelming Japanese victory.

1 Comment
2016-04-25 21:08

The Australian records indicate that they could do nothing against the tanks. I found that the only effective approach to stopping them was to double stack with a unit directly behind the first one on the trail. This immobilized the tank and forced the Japanese player to consider leaving the trail which is the only way to kill the tank.

You must be a registered member and logged-in to post a comment.
The Landing
Author Juiceman
Method Solo
Victor Draw
Play Date 2021-08-09
Language English
Scenario KoCa025

This is a small battle with a company of Australian infantry commanded by two officers defending the trail and local village against a Japanese company from the 5th Kure SNLF supported by a Type 95 tank section. The Japanese have the higher morale, 9/8 to the Australians at 7/6, the scenario takes place at night with visibility down to one hex, jungle disorientation in effect as well as FOW.

Things did not start off well for the Japanese, their lead platoon was eliminated by opportunity fire at first contact and the follow up platoon was demoralized, the only saving grace was the tank section could not be harmed. For the next 8 turns the Aussie forces won the initiative and slowly fell back leap frogging over their forces but they could not fall back for the entire game and expect to win.

The Aussies held up better than expected since their morale is 7/6, but the key was the two good leaders both with a morale modifier which helped when needed. FOW did not come into play for this scenario due to the small force size and limited points of contact. In the end it was control of the three village hexes by the Australians that helped them tip the scales into a draw instead of a Japanese minor victory. VP totals were Japanese 12 vs 13 for the Aussies.

0 Comments
You must be a registered member and logged-in to post a comment.
A Nightime Fight in Eastern New Guinea
Author treadasaurusrex (Japan)
Method VASSAL
Victor Japan
Participants Tubac52
Play Date 2024-04-28
Language English
Scenario KoCa025

This was a 4-session, company-scale, play-through in the dark with the daring & adept Tubac52 leading the defending Aussis side. I had the attacking Japanese, and both sides drew decent leaders sets. This was a relatively-balanced one, that ended in a victory for the Emperor's SNLF boys landing in New Guinea. We played it with the FOW and excess initiative optional rules.

Others have described the action of what is in essence a lengthy Australian tactical withdrawal in the face of a higher morale, combined arms force. As is typical, jungle disorientation caused havoc for both sides, but hurt the Australians more than the surging Nipponese. The final VP total were 15 for the Japanese and 10 for the Australians. iI the senior Aussia leader had not ben eliminated in the 6th game turn, this could well have been an Ausralian win.

This one is a decent, but slightly tedious pull. Reasonably balanced, the scenario is suitable for SHARED and SOLO play. I give it a three.

2 Comments
2024-04-28 18:36

Ah, but my worthy opponent had light tanks, which made most of the critical difference in force correlation, and directly contributed to the early death of the Aussie senior leader. After that tragic event, all Australian combat decisions were made on the basis of "the lesser of 2 evils."

2024-04-28 19:00

Even a pair of crummy, road-bound, tank platoons is way better, than no tank platoons! Thanks for letting me play the side - with at least - light armor.

You must be a registered member and logged-in to post a comment.
Errors? Omissions? Report them!
Page generated in 0.461 seconds.