Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: DISASTER AT PONAPE

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: DISASTER AT PONAPE Page: <<   < prev  41 42 [43] 44 45   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: DISASTER AT PONAPE - 2/14/2008 6:06:53 PM   
Gen.Hoepner


Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline 		The 100 B-17 exp at Eniwetok is between 68 and 75. But i think only 40 of them will be operable tomorrow.
Then i have 200 2Es (B-26,B25 and Beauforts) between 65 and 70. Not bad...that's also why the results displeased me so much...
Tomorrow i'll move in from Maloleap more 100 fighters ...this will make a total force of 200 fighters at Eniwetok.
Gonna make some calculations...however i think he can move at full speed...how many? 8 hexes?...so i think i can run safe my CVs and BBs east of Eniwetok...he can come in...but the risk woulb be quite high for him...

_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to hades1001)
Post #: 1261
RE: DISASTER AT PONAPE - 2/14/2008 6:47:51 PM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		Depending on what CV/CVL/CVEs he is bringing, he may be able to move 10, so plan on that being a possibility.

And I agree with Pauk, if you have concrete proof of something, present it. But, no inuendos.

I'll get off my soap box now.

Time to trap the trapper General.

_____________________________


(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 1262
RE: DISASTER AT PONAPE - 2/14/2008 7:22:12 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		I agree this game is gonna be fun lets not end it prematurely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk



guys, please calm down. If you want to comment AAR i suggest reading only one part of the AAR (where you are posting your thoughts, advices and that stuff).

Both "sides" here risks with "killing the players fun and enjoyment". Trust me i know what i'm talking.

You really all should refrain posting stuff like this (he is cheating, he is gamey opponent etc). Sooner or latter you will found yourselves in similar situations you will change your minds (like our very special PzjHortlund - he is actually now considering gamey ground training - which was in his eyes very gamey, until it is not his game)

If GH and Trollelite have issues they will solve them directly. I'm reading both sides of AAR and not commenting anything. Please, lets focus on the game




(in reply to pauk)
Post #: 1263
RE: DISASTER AT PONAPE - 2/14/2008 7:36:13 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

As far as I know, CAP is not affected by coordination penalities.


Sorry, I wasn't clear. Was referring to the 'lrcap being only 1/4 effective when capping a cvtf' penalty not any coordination issue. If you have your cvtf follow a sctf, you simply place your lrcap on the sctf and it is fully effective, not subject to the 1/4 penalty if flown over a cvtf. Like I said, it's weasily or weasel-like, but effective.

It's been about a while since I've played, so I may be more confused than I normally am.

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 1264
RE: DISASTER AT PONAPE - 2/14/2008 8:12:50 PM   
hades1001

 

Posts: 977
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline 		brand new KB should be able to move 12 hexes a day but this is  May 42, it would be some system damage, so let's 10 hex most, and usually something would happen and your fleet just wouldn't go that far.

_____________________________



As swift as wind;
As calm as wood;
Invasion like flames;
Defense like rocks.

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 1265
RE: DISASTER AT PONAPE - 2/14/2008 8:26:24 PM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		WHATEVER

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Nomad -- 2/14/2008 9:16:59 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to hades1001)
Post #: 1266
RE: DISASTER AT PONAPE - 2/14/2008 8:46:51 PM   
veji1

 

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline 		If you put Full Speed and take the Kaga out then you can do 12.

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 1267
RE: China is lost. Changsha falls - 2/14/2008 9:19:01 PM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

If you can hold out similar to how you'll hold out at Karachi, then the Russian units will upgrade to Corps someday and you can launch a massive counter-attack.

Sadly, the game engine will move the units back to their original location on the map after upgrading them to corps.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

What gets interesting is... no matter where or what the unit in slot 2164 is... it gets replaced with the 2nd Rifle corps and gets moved to Borzya. It maintains the planning of the previous unit.... as well as the TO&E of the previous unit...I suspect the same will be true for all of the upgrades... however they don't all go to Borzya some get moved to other locations.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1105280

IMO retreating north isn't an option, I would fight it out in the south.

_____________________________


(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 1268
RE: DISASTER AT PONAPE - 2/14/2008 9:19:20 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1

If you put Full Speed and take the Kaga out then you can do 12.


Well if you look at my AAR where I lost the Yorktown, I had a 6/6 movement display on a full speed run and my CV's only moved 9 hexes. Someone then said that task forces NEVER move the full speed displayed on a full speed run unless they are returning to base. I'd assume he can make the move, but at the same time assume you cannot make the moves your side displays. That way you assume the worst and there are no surprises.

Here's the thread:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1582758&mpage=5 (post 148)

Jim


_____________________________


(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 1269
RE: China is lost. Changsha falls - 2/14/2008 9:28:43 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG
IMO retreating north isn't an option, I would fight it out in the south.


Well if he fights in the south he’s within range of lots of Japanese air bases and naval bombardments. His supply won’t last long under those circumstances and most of his new supply comes from the north which will be quickly isolated if he doesn’t protect it with everything he’s got.

Holding out in the south for 6 months (if that long) doesn’t help him since his counter-attacks to retake India and the Mariana’s and PI’s won’t occur until 1944 now due to the recently lost CV’s. He gets no additional CV’s except the Essex in 1943 and 5 CV’s isn’t enough to counter an intact KB, so he can’t attack in earnest till 1944.

Russia will be long gone by then if he fights in the south and all that Japanese land power will then be out in the Pacific.

He needs to keep as much land power as possible tied down in Russia and India if he hopes to have any chance at all in the Pacific. Otherwise every island in the Pacific will look like Pauk’s Mariana’s defense against Andy and as we all saw it’s impossible to win against so much power on an island.

Nope he needs to keep Russia alive and the north is the only area he has any hope of supplies lasting him through 1944. Nothing at all of any strategic importance is gained by fighting in the south except his destruction in detail as he’ll be facing 25,000+ AV and his units will be scattered and easily overcome.

Jim


< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 2/14/2008 9:31:20 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 1270
RE: China is lost. Changsha falls - 2/14/2008 11:11:38 PM   
Gen.Hoepner


Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline 		Turn arrived.
We decided to split our fleet in 3 different groups.
2 BBs, 5 CAs, 20 DDs and some 40 different ships (MWS, APs, AKs, MSWs etc) will move to Eniwetok.
6 BBs and 15 DDs will move at full speed towards Wake Island.
2 CVs, with their groups and one strong surface TF (CAs,CLs and DDs in it) will move at full speed SOuth East towards Maloealap.

Eniwetok reinforced with 200 fighters and 300 bombers.
Maloealap and Wotje have a grand total of 240 planes in them (fighters, fighter bombers and bombers).
Subs dispacted in order to interdict his possible advance with the KB eastwards.

Losses of yesterday have been terrible.
We lost nearly 260 planes, 2 CVs, 1 BB, 1 CL and got one CL badly damaged.
He lost 150 planes of the KB, 3 subs and nothing more...

Let's keep the fingers crossed guys...Wasp is arriving in 20 days...Saratoga is repairing at SF...36 sys now...

At Aden we have now 3 CVs,1 CVLs and several surface ships.
Seafires are starting to appear....

Karachi is down to 266,000 supplies...






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 1271
RE: China is lost. Changsha falls - 2/14/2008 11:14:05 PM   
Gen.Hoepner


Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline 		In China our plans are scrumbled again...our armies are now stopped by a "lucky defeat" of his paras...those bastards, being pushed back after a useless drop, moved to the woods NE of Liuchow, thus stopping our march......

The pocket is almost closed...




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 1272
RE: China is lost. Changsha falls - 2/14/2008 11:19:03 PM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline 		Task forces may not move the full 12 hexes if DD escorts have to have their fuel topped off (unlikely as he probably fully fueled at Truk), or if the CV's have to do CAP operations. (I am not sure how much CAP will slow a TF, but it can...)

EDIT: Your right about the dissapointing performance of your LBA. I would have expected better from those experience levels. Was it weather?

< Message edited by mlees -- 2/14/2008 11:20:37 PM >

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 1273
RE: China is lost. Changsha falls - 2/14/2008 11:34:07 PM   
Gen.Hoepner


Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

Task forces may not move the full 12 hexes if DD escorts have to have their fuel topped off (unlikely as he probably fully fueled at Truk), or if the CV's have to do CAP operations. (I am not sure how much CAP will slow a TF, but it can...)

EDIT: Your right about the dissapointing performance of your LBA. I would have expected better from those experience levels. Was it weather?



Weather was perfect all over Eniwetok...i'm sure of that.

Let's see if tomorrow i'll be a bit luckier

_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 1274
RE: China is lost. Changsha falls - 2/14/2008 11:40:24 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner

In China our plans are scrumbled again...our armies are now stopped by a "lucky defeat" of his paras...those bastards, being pushed back after a useless drop, moved to the woods NE of Liuchow, thus stopping our march......

The pocket is almost closed...


Hopefully in AE this sort of thing will no longer happen....the paras won't have a place to retreat to since they will not control any of the hexes hexsides and will be stuck in the hex pending their destruction....but alas that is for AE and does not help you here.




quote:







_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 1275
RE: China is lost. Changsha falls - 2/15/2008 2:29:28 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		I have only recently discovered this AAR and have only sped read though to this point.  One of several things which intrigue me is how is it that Japan can afford to maintain such large armies continuously on the offensive in China?  I have never played CHS but I thought supply was reasonably limited in China.  Shouldn't supply become more scarce the more the Japanese advance into the interior away from the ports.  Is there a reason why the Allies are not conducting a scorched earth policy of striking at enemy resource centres?

Alfred

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 1276
RE: China is lost. Changsha falls - 2/15/2008 2:42:43 AM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		In CHS, as an Allied player, I can tell you that unless you have at least the Burma Road open (500 supply/day) and/or still have Ledo to use you massive transport armada to fly over the Hump, the daily bombing runs will dry up your supply very quickly. Since GH doen't have either, his LCUs will be hurting for a long time to come (if he survives in China).  

_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 1277
RE: China is lost. Changsha falls - 2/15/2008 4:13:10 AM   
dekwik


Posts: 90
Joined: 9/22/2007
From: Atlanta
Status: offline 		Just been catching up. Great AAR General. Everybody can make up their own minds on what's going on in terms of fairness, and those posts might make an interesting thread. But as you say, not here. "Keepin' it classy."
Troll's a good player but you're better.

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 1278
RE: China is lost. Changsha falls - 2/15/2008 5:21:28 AM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

I have only recently discovered this AAR and have only sped read though to this point.  One of several things which intrigue me is how is it that Japan can afford to maintain such large armies continuously on the offensive in China?  I have never played CHS but I thought supply was reasonably limited in China.  Shouldn't supply become more scarce the more the Japanese advance into the interior away from the ports.  Is there a reason why the Allies are not conducting a scorched earth policy of striking at enemy resource centres?

Alfred


CHS suffers from the same problem all/most mods suffer from. 95% of the changes benefit Japan because they reduce allied power. Not to say that the changes weren’t needed, it’s just that it is far easier to mod the allies due to the preponderance of English sources available to modders.

So almost all the changes limit the allies in some way shape or form and China was no different than the rest of the changes. They made no attempt at all to try and model Japan’s difficulties in keeping the front supplied, so the net effect is China became weaker in game, even though they have a bigger army.

They failed to account for the increased supply cost of that army (especially when in combat or when being bombed), so China’s overall supply situation is worse than stock. Sure the resource centers can no longer be bombed, but China is still far too short in total supplies produced and when one or two major cities go down they’re completely screwed. CHS made China too fragile.

I think Japan should have to keep a fixed brigade in every rail line hex in China. That would model the difficulties they had in getting supplies to the front. Japan had to keep about 2/3rds of its army in China busy guarding the supply net. In game they only need to keep about 1/10th on garrison.

Unfortunately AE appears to be going through a similar mod experience. Most changes are geared towards reducing allied power to historical levels and little or no changes are geared towards reducing the Japanese to those same strict historical guidelines.

Jim


_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 1279
RE: China is lost. Changsha falls - 2/15/2008 6:38:54 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Unfortunately AE appears to be going through a similar mod experience. Most changes are geared towards reducing allied power to historical levels and little or no changes are geared towards reducing the Japanese to those same strict historical guidelines.

Jim


Disagree here, Jim. They mentioned quite a bit of restructuring of Japanese forces in China. We'll have to see what it yields.


General,

Sorry about the ambush, I was really afraid of that. I'm with you - it really was the obvious move for Japan. Just too bad he pulled it off so one sided for the results!

Looking on the bright side, just having what you have now gives you a good base for aerial attrition with naval threats in addition as time goes on. And you got perhaps 150 KB pilots on one day!

Remember what John Paul Jones said when the opposing captain asked if he had struck his colors (when the flag was shot away):

"I have not yet begun to fight!"

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 1280
RE: China is lost. Changsha falls - 2/15/2008 9:03:57 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

Task forces may not move the full 12 hexes if DD escorts have to have their fuel topped off (unlikely as he probably fully fueled at Truk), or if the CV's have to do CAP operations. (I am not sure how much CAP will slow a TF, but it can...)

EDIT: Your right about the dissapointing performance of your LBA. I would have expected better from those experience levels. Was it weather?



I have never seen CAP using up op points, never.

_____________________________


(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 1281
RE: China is lost. Changsha falls - 2/15/2008 9:47:15 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		Jim D Burns,

If I understood you right, in scenario #160 there are no resource centres in China for either side?  If so, presumably that means certain cities get auto supply.  Is there heavy industry in China to generate supply, or is that also not present?

Alfred

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 1282
RE: China is lost. Changsha falls - 2/15/2008 10:39:09 AM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Jim D Burns,

If I understood you right, in scenario #160 there are no resource centres in China for either side?  If so, presumably that means certain cities get auto supply.  Is there heavy industry in China to generate supply, or is that also not present?

Alfred



Here’s everything you could want to know about the changes to China. As you can see, basic supply consumption (77032) is more than leftovers (72968). So if you double consumption simply due to air bombardments, you’re already running a deficit. Then factor in airforce costs, construction, rebuilding losses, etc. and China is in real trouble.

http://www.bur.st/~akbrown/witp/CHS_documentation/China.html

I should note, they factor in the Burma Road to their calculations, even though in most games it’s closed for 80% of the game. Also Urumchi's supply does not move into China.

This should probably move to a new thread in the main forum if you want to discuss China further. Don't want to hyjack G.H.'s thread any more than it has been.

Jim


< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 2/15/2008 10:44:16 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 1283
RE: China is lost. Changsha falls - 2/15/2008 12:38:45 PM   
Gen.Hoepner


Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline 		AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/10/42

Just got the reply guys...i'm at work and cannot play and last night it was a horrible night, with fever, chills and nightmares...:-(

However luckly enough our fleet wasn't chased down by the KB.
He deployed, all of a sudden something like 15 subs around Eniwetok and Ponape...
KB moved 2 hexes back, now stationing 3 hexes NW of Ponape, surely LRCAPping Ponape too...he was waiting for me...i gotta say that i was tempted to go forward and send the invasion force ahead...luckly i was wiser

Anyway, the plan now for the pacific is the following.
We'll slow down the operations at Eniwetok. The CVs will get back to PH, along with 4 BBs and the bulk of our surface fleet. As soon as the KB will move back we'll start again the bombing campaign at Ponape.
At the same time we'll move a lot of empty ships to Wake Isl. A couple of DMS and MSWs for sure.
CVE long Island will move to Wake too, with 10 DDs and 1 CL. In a week we'll start to recon heavily Marcus Isl.
The fast DMSs will move up and down from Wake to Marcus, clearing mines there.
The CVE will get closer, being very carefull to be clearly spotted by his Emilies at Marcus.
Wanna simulate an invasion there. Maybe some B-17s will be moved to wake in order to conduct some bombing runs on Marcus. He will be forced to protect 2 bases so.
As soon as we decide that the decoy mission as been acceptably shown as serious, we'll land at Ponape. No CVs on escort this time. Just a fast transport. A raid.
At the same time, considering that at the moment Ponape is the furthest place i can go with these forces, i'll divert some units to SOPAC. 1 Division, 3 base forces, 4 EAB units and some air units will be moved to PM and Darwin.
More units will follow. Time to start new fronts.
...however Ponape remains a MUST!

In China we managed to save 2300 AVs from Liuchow...which will be conquered tomorrow (his reinforced arrived!) and so the pocket will be closed on this side.
Supplies are absolutely a problem. At Chungking we don't even have the supplies to draw some planes to my groups...it's terrible. Won't last long under these conditions...


I'll add the boring combat txt of the chinese air offensive just to let you understand what my guys are facing....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Hengchow , at 44,37

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 6
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 2
Ki-48-I Lily x 69

No Japanese losses


Allied ground losses:
90 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

Airbase hits 10
Airbase supply hits 4
Runway hits 40

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 6000 feet
4 x Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 6000 feet
6 x Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 6000 feet
7 x Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 6000 feet
6 x Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 6000 feet
4 x Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 6000 feet
4 x Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 6000 feet
2 x Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 6000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Liuchow , at 41,37

Japanese aircraft
Ki-15 Babs x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-15 Babs: 1 damaged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Manila , at 43,52

Japanese aircraft
Ki-48-I Lily x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-48-I Lily: 7 damaged

Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 3

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 22000 feet
3 x Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 22000 feet
3 x Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 22000 feet
3 x Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 22000 feet
3 x Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 22000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 31st Chinese Corps, at 41,36

Japanese aircraft
Ki-49 Helen x 12

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49 Helen: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged


Allied ground losses:
35 casualties reported

Aircraft Attacking:
8 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 38th Chinese Corps, at 45,36

Japanese aircraft
B5N2 Kate x 13
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 10
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 3
Ki-32 Mary x 39

No Japanese losses


Allied ground losses:
40 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Aircraft Attacking:
13 x Ki-32 Mary bombing at 2000 feet
9 x B5N2 Kate bombing at 6000 feet
12 x Ki-32 Mary bombing at 2000 feet
4 x B5N2 Kate bombing at 6000 feet
7 x Ki-32 Mary bombing at 2000 feet
7 x Ki-32 Mary bombing at 2000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 38th Chinese Corps, at 45,36

Japanese aircraft
Ki-49 Helen x 44

No Japanese losses


Allied ground losses:
48 casualties reported

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
6 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
8 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
11 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
6 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
4 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 29th Chinese Corps, at 41,37

Japanese aircraft
D3A2 Val x 20
B5N2 Kate x 11
Ki-30 Ann x 20

Japanese aircraft losses
D3A2 Val: 1 destroyed, 5 damaged
B5N2 Kate: 1 damaged
Ki-30 Ann: 2 damaged


Allied ground losses:
97 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

Aircraft Attacking:
20 x Ki-30 Ann bombing at 2000 feet
19 x D3A2 Val bombing at 2000 feet
11 x B5N2 Kate bombing at 6000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 78th Chinese Corps, at 42,37

Japanese aircraft
D3A2 Val x 14

No Japanese losses


Allied ground losses:
13 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

Aircraft Attacking:
14 x D3A2 Val bombing at 2000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 78th Chinese Corps, at 42,37

Japanese aircraft
Ki-48-I Lily x 11

No Japanese losses


Allied ground losses:
8 casualties reported

Aircraft Attacking:
11 x Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 6000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 18th Art Regt Field Artillery Regiment, at 43,37

Japanese aircraft
D3A2 Val x 11

No Japanese losses


Allied ground losses:
54 casualties reported

Aircraft Attacking:
11 x D3A2 Val bombing at 2000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 3rd Chinese Air Base Force, at 44,35

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 17

No Japanese losses


Allied ground losses:
48 casualties reported

Aircraft Attacking:
11 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 6000 feet
6 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 6000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 11th Chinese Air Base Force, at 41,36

Japanese aircraft
Ki-49 Helen x 8

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49 Helen: 2 damaged


Allied ground losses:
81 casualties reported

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
2 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 22nd Chinese/A Corps, at 51,28

Japanese aircraft
Ki-30 Ann x 24
Ki-51 Sonia x 10

No Japanese losses


Allied ground losses:
48 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Aircraft Attacking:
24 x Ki-30 Ann bombing at 2000 feet
10 x Ki-51 Sonia bombing at 2000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 72nd Chinese/C Corps, at 46,35

Japanese aircraft
Ki-51 Sonia x 6

No Japanese losses

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x Ki-51 Sonia bombing at 2000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 9th Prov Chinese/A Corps, at 45,36

Japanese aircraft
Ki-49 Helen x 26

No Japanese losses


Allied ground losses:
43 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
6 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
2 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 53rd Chinese/C Corps, at 45,36

Japanese aircraft
Ki-49 Helen x 32

No Japanese losses


Allied ground losses:
82 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

Aircraft Attacking:
7 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
5 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
4 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
4 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 65th Chinese/A Corps, at 41,36

Japanese aircraft
D3A2 Val x 129
Ki-30 Ann x 30

Japanese aircraft losses
D3A2 Val: 15 damaged
Ki-30 Ann: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged


Allied ground losses:
248 casualties reported
Guns lost 3

Aircraft Attacking:
24 x Ki-30 Ann bombing at 2000 feet
4 x Ki-30 Ann bombing at 2000 feet
28 x D3A2 Val bombing at 2000 feet
22 x D3A2 Val bombing at 2000 feet
22 x D3A2 Val bombing at 2000 feet
23 x D3A2 Val bombing at 2000 feet
17 x D3A2 Val bombing at 2000 feet
17 x D3A2 Val bombing at 2000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 60th Chinese/B Corps, at 44,39

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27 Nate x 7

No Japanese losses


Allied ground losses:
8 casualties reported

Aircraft Attacking:
7 x Ki-27 Nate bombing at 2000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-II Sally x 81
Ki-49 Helen x 25
Ki-46-II Dinah x 1

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-II Sally: 8 damaged
Ki-49 Helen: 2 damaged


Allied ground losses:
151 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

Airbase hits 10
Airbase supply hits 4
Runway hits 51

Aircraft Attacking:
13 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 13000 feet
9 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 13000 feet
8 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 13000 feet
10 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 13000 feet
11 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 13000 feet
9 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 13000 feet
8 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 13000 feet
4 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 13000 feet
3 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 13000 feet
3 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 13000 feet
3 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 13000 feet
4 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 13000 feet
3 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 13000 feet
3 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 13000 feet
3 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 13000 feet
3 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 13000 feet
3 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 13000 feet
3 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 13000 feet
3 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 13000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Liuchow , at 41,37

Japanese aircraft
Ki-15 Babs x 1

No Japanese losses


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Liuchow

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 21382 troops, 113 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1408

Defending force 15208 troops, 47 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 337* this is the static unit*



Allied ground losses:
13 casualties reported


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Kweilin
*another useless para-drop*....

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 305 troops, 2 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 14

Defending force 72963 troops, 335 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1838

Japanese max assault: 20 - adjusted assault: 0

Allied max defense: 1799 - adjusted defense: 1251

Japanese assault odds: 0 to 1 (fort level 3)


Japanese ground losses:
141 casualties reported
Guns lost 1



_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 1284
RE: China is lost. Changsha falls - 2/15/2008 12:41:24 PM   
Gen.Hoepner


Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

I have only recently discovered this AAR and have only sped read though to this point.  One of several things which intrigue me is how is it that Japan can afford to maintain such large armies continuously on the offensive in China?  I have never played CHS but I thought supply was reasonably limited in China.  Shouldn't supply become more scarce the more the Japanese advance into the interior away from the ports.  Is there a reason why the Allies are not conducting a scorched earth policy of striking at enemy resource centres?

Alfred


First we have strict house rules about strategic bombings.
Second i barely have the supplies needed to feed one man out of four...not even to think about a bombing campaign...also because he has hundreds of fighters in China and all my major AFs are closed by his bombers...

_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 1285
RE: China is lost. Changsha falls - 2/15/2008 1:00:48 PM   
cantona2


Posts: 3749
Joined: 5/21/2007
From: Gibraltar
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/10/42

Just got the reply guys...i'm at work and cannot play and last night it was a horrible night, with fever, chills and nightmares...:-(




Caused by my subs maybe


_____________________________

1966 was a great year for English Football...Eric was born


(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 1286
RE: China is lost. Changsha falls - 2/15/2008 8:01:23 PM   
Bearcat2

 

Posts: 577
Joined: 2/14/2004
Status: offline 		I think it's time for the "speech"

" we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."

(in reply to cantona2)
Post #: 1287
RE: China is lost. Changsha falls - 2/15/2008 11:48:48 PM   
Fishbed

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline 		GH, why don't you go for the barge option? Andy talked about it. I did. You don't need to commit the whole Pacfleet to that... Just send a lot of barges and some AKs with a light defensive screen patrolling the hex. He doesn't exactly have 400 hundred guns there, does he? This, you can afford, while you keep that airfield closed...

You could even bombard the place with DDs... And God knows how many DDs you're gonna receive before the end of the war...

< Message edited by Fishbed -- 2/15/2008 11:49:40 PM >

(in reply to Bearcat2)
Post #: 1288
RE: China is lost. Changsha falls - 2/16/2008 3:09:02 AM   
Gen.Hoepner


Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

GH, why don't you go for the barge option? Andy talked about it. I did. You don't need to commit the whole Pacfleet to that... Just send a lot of barges and some AKs with a light defensive screen patrolling the hex. He doesn't exactly have 400 hundred guns there, does he? This, you can afford, while you keep that airfield closed...

You could even bombard the place with DDs... And God knows how many DDs you're gonna receive before the end of the war...


I just have 2 barges...simply impossible at the moment

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/11-12/42

KB has retourned to Truk...waiting.
We started to recon Marcus...just to give him some more things to think about...
Tomorrow the bombing of Ponape will start back again. Let's see for how long he'll keep the KB at Truk....
Lost 2 subs near Truk due to the Kates and Vals' attacks....had to get back to Eniwetok with my sub patrols...for the moment!


I've come up with a new risky operation...code-name "Babylon"
I've seen that from the actual bases he has in India he cannot escort his betties with his zeros if i stay just close to the edge of the Map...so i'll try to move down to Oz 3 AIF divisions from Aden, escorted by 3 CVs, 1 CVLs and 5 BBs...need to open the front at Darwin and this is the only way to get some extra troops and ships...those units however won't be doing anything up there for a LONG time.... As long as his CVs are in the pacific i can risk the unescorted betties raid with seafires and hurricanes in CAP...
I still have some time to think about it....however i find it feaseble. It will give him some more troubles...and if i manage to get 3 fresh divisions and 200 fresh planes in Northern Oz...well...the front will be open!!

In China...it's a mess! we managed to get 2400 AVs out of the pocket at Liuchow, but at Hengchow he managed to cross the river NW of Changsha before i could get out...now my units are moving on the plain hexes...they will be cut off...but...i couldn' t do anything better so it's ok...



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 45,36 *NW of Changsha*

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 165063 troops, 772 guns, 240 vehicles, Assault Value = 3700

Defending force 18723 troops, 89 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 593

Japanese max assault: 4108 - adjusted assault: 4084

Allied max defense: 460 - adjusted defense: 30

Japanese assault odds: 136 to 1


Japanese ground losses:
1292 casualties reported
Guns lost 14
Vehicles lost 5

Allied ground losses:
1964 casualties reported
Guns lost 42


Defeated Allied Units Retreating!






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 1289
RE: China is lost. Changsha falls - 2/16/2008 3:32:53 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		If he gets a good look at the TF's then KB might react and seek to trap them against the 'edge of the world' [I always knew the world was flat!] in the Indian ocean Left of Java.

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 1290
Page:   <<   < prev  41 42 [43] 44 45   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: DISASTER AT PONAPE Page: <<   < prev  41 42 [43] 44 45   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.063