| |

CDG 29 Aussies at Buna, 1942 – Outcome and AnalysisArmchair General staff | November 18, 2008 | 2 comments | Print | E-mail November Issue Web Extra! Until now, ACG readers had to wait two issues before finding out the solution to our popular You Command Combat Decision Games. Now, we will begin posting the solution and an analysis of the historical outcome at armchairgeneral.com shortly after the respective due date for submissions of Reader Solutions. Here is the historical outcome and an analysis for You Command CDG #29, “Aussies at Buna, 1942,” November 2008 issue. Aussies at Buna, 1942 Historical Outcome The Japanese, as they would do on Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, and countless other Pacific islands targeted by the Allies, used skill and ingenuity to construct well-camouflaged bunkers and fighting positions that were nearly impervious to all but a direct artillery hit. Furthermore, they cleverly positioned these fortifications to provide deadly interlocking fires that shredded the ranks of their attackers. The Allies began measuring advances in mere yards, as their infantrymen typically had to clear each enemy position with grenades and small arms. By the time Cummings’ men took over the attack against Buna on December 18, the Japanese defenders had already defeated the Americans’ every attempt to capture the stronghold. Cummings’ troops, however, enjoyed some distinct advantages over their American counterparts. In addition to the assistance they received from the platoon of Bren Gun Carriers, the Australian infantrymen were aided by newly arrived Stuart tanks – the first ones to take part in the operation. The mobility and light armor protection of these vehicles were more than adequate for close-combat operations in jungle terrain against an enemy with few anti-tank weapons. The battery of U.S. 105 mm artillery and the 81 mm mortar company also added much needed “punch” to the Australians’ fire support. Cummings decided to launch a battalion frontal attack (Course of Action Three) against the Japanese positions, aligning C Company, B Company, A Company and D Company from left to right. Initially he employed the Bren Gun Carriers as fire support weapons (clearing a swath through the kunai grass with their concentrated machine-gun fire) but later moved them forward to support the infantry assault. He ordered the tanks to advance with the infantry companies, taking advantage of their armor protection and 37 mm main guns. At 6:50 a.m. on December 18, supporting artillery and mortars fired a 10-minute barrage against known Japanese positions before Cummings’ infantry companies initiated their general assault at 7 a.m. While companies A and D made good progress on the right of Cummings’ line, companies B and especially C suffered heavy casualties and advanced slowly. Even with tank support, the infantrymen had difficulty taking the Japanese defenses, particularly the coconut log bunkers. Just as the Americans had before them, the Australians discovered that almost every bunker had to be cleared methodically with grenades and small arms. Casualties were heavy; C Company lost 46 of its 87 men in the first 10 minutes of the attack while gaining only 100 yards. Cummings soon shifted the majority of his tanks to his left flank to help the assault move forward. [continued on next page] Pages: 1 2Tags: game, Pacific War
|
|
|
|
||
What is Armchair General?Armchair General (ACG) and ACG online feature a unique, interactive editorial approach that invites the reader to decide the course of action in challenging historical scenarios, to step into the shoes of a battlefield commander. Leading historians and contributors lend integrity and credibility to this fresh presentation of historical and contemporary events. Armchair General is the INTERACTIVE history magazine where YOU COMMAND and decide the course of action! |
What We Write About
|
Our Other Magazines |
Weider History Network: HistoryNet | Armchair General | Great History | Achtung Panzer! Copyright © 2004-2008 Armchair General L.L.C., All rights reserved. |
||
2 Comments to “CDG 29 Aussies at Buna, 1942 – Outcome and Analysis”
After the Papuan campaign, both sides were pretty stuffed for months. Virtually all the allied infantry units were a fraction of their nominal strength. Macarthur’s leadership was extremely poor during this campaign, urging both Americans directly and Australians by proxy to attack at all costs, without doing proper reconnaissance. The allied leadership do appear to have learned the appropriate lessons, leading to the extremely successful Huon peninsula campaign, which, by essentially outflanking Rabaul where Japanese capital ships dare not go, led to the island hopping campaign. This didn’t really get going until 15 months after Buna, with the Atiape landings in April 1944.
The casualties suffered by the 2/9 battalion were excessive and unforgivable. In the lead-up, Macarthur had strongly criticized Australian performances at Kokoda trail and Milne bay. When the Americans became bogged down at Buna, the Australians sent this battalion in an over-hasty attack to demonstrate to the Americans that they were a capable army, suffering excessive casualties as a result.
By peter_ga on Jul 12, 2009 at 5:50 am