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: Enemy carriers near SRA!

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Enemy carriers near SRA! Page: <<   < prev  70 71 [72] 73 74   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Enemy carriers near SRA! - 2/18/2011 5:54:49 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
I find it interesting, that during AA combat almost NO planes, are being reported as damaged. Does Japan finally achieved critical firepower?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB
Hm, bombarding a rough jungle hex can be demanding as this turn show; need good weather to hit anything.
Let's make a few tests before making any conclusions.


In Guadalcanal scenario, I could keep base permanently closed, with bombardment every 1-2 days, on average 2 heavy ships, and 3 DDs.
It seems there is random roll of effectiveness before bombardment, so, if there is no enemy fleets in hex, it would be probably better, to split bombarding forces, and attack few times in one turn.

quote:

Not sure, have to look over the base forces to count radar sets.


There are 4 types of Sound Detector, of which only one do not upgrade into radar. Maybe yours failed to upgrade yet? They should long be in production.

quote:

In Burma I noticed a major Allied buildup of fighters at Akyab; I think Andy wanted to sweep Rangoon.
So instead of being sitting ducks I ordered an all out sweep.


Sending TOJOs at extended range is not a good idea. OSCARS should be enough for AIRACOBRAS, so add just more ZEROs. Besides it is port, which you already bombarded several times. Just send few CAs again.

quote:

A large number of experienced Netties and Betties also attacked the Luganville invasion force.
Must have been the weather cause they couldn't hit a thing...one torp hit and that was a dud


What with those TFs, which retreats toward Australia? Were they heavily CAPed? BETTYs could easily get them, at 22(?) hexes.

quote:

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 2411 troops, 64 guns, 47 vehicles, Assault Value = 141
Defending force 9516 troops, 132 guns, 11 vehicles, Assault Value = 261

Allied adjusted assault: 6

Japanese adjusted defense: 619
Allied assault odds: 1 to 103 (fort level 4)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), preparation(-), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+), leaders(-), supply(-)


Uuuu, no supply already? If you will keep transports away, THE SHOW will be over in a week.

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 2131
RE: Enemy carriers near SRA! - 2/18/2011 6:29:00 PM   
BigBadWolf


Posts: 584
Joined: 8/8/2007
From: Serbia
Status: offline
quote:

Allied ground losses:
865 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 60 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 30 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 29 disabled
Vehicles lost 19 (1 destroyed, 18 disabled)


With 63 squads and 19 vehicles out of action, how much AV does 73rd has left? If you can push it back before reinforcments arrive, you will keep him in the dark untill you enter Waingapoe in force.

_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 2132
RE: Enemy carriers near SRA! - 2/18/2011 6:35:29 PM   
Hortlund


Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor
Uuuu, no supply already? If you will keep transports away, THE SHOW will be over in a week.

"No supply already"... The unit was in pursuit and probably did not draw supply today.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigBadWolf
With 63 squads and 19 vehicles out of action, how much AV does 73rd has left? If you can push it back before reinforcments arrive, you will keep him in the dark untill you enter Waingapoe in force.

AV will depend on supply, leadership rolls and whether any of the disabled squads "repair". During the attack, all units in the hex will be visible though, so there is no way to attack without telling Andy about the 3 new divisions.


_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 2133
RE: Enemy carriers near SRA! - 2/18/2011 6:38:50 PM   
Hortlund


Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB
In Burma I noticed a major Allied buildup of fighters at Akyab; I think Andy wanted to sweep Rangoon.
So instead of being sitting ducks I ordered an all out sweep.


STOP FIGHTING OVER HIS BASES.

You need to retain your pilots and make him lose his. By sweeping his bases, you are doing the opposite. And you give him the radar advantage for free.

_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 2134
RE: Enemy carriers near SRA! - 2/18/2011 8:56:41 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

But he also gives him the advantage that sweeps have over CAP, which is not insignificant. You have to mix up.


_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Hortlund)
Post #: 2135
RE: Enemy carriers near SRA! - 2/18/2011 9:48:55 PM   
BigBadWolf


Posts: 584
Joined: 8/8/2007
From: Serbia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund


AV will depend on supply, leadership rolls and whether any of the disabled squads "repair". During the attack, all units in the hex will be visible though, so there is no way to attack without telling Andy about the 3 new divisions.



True, but with all those disablements, base AV should be halved. But you are right, the point is moot, as I missed the part where PzB says that he's already unloading.


_____________________________


(in reply to Hortlund)
Post #: 2136
RE: Enemy carriers near SRA! - 2/18/2011 10:24:57 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

3 of 4 TFs are amphibious; the transport tf will return with its heavy weapons and return with them in amph mode later!
Key now is to get critical mass ashore and a) destroy the Motor Bde b) become strong enough to resist any Allied attack

When this has been achieved we will consider how to destroy the remaining enemy units



even amphib TFs fail to unload heavy equipment at friendly level 1 ports if there isn´t enough nav support at the base (you can unload everything WITHOUT any nav support when you invade though - that´s what I´m wondering about). Don´t know the load costs for the Japanese but the Allied aren´t able to unload heavy stuff at a level 1 port without nav support, that´s why I´m always sending a USN base force with my troops.


Yeah, even those little port service units help with this.


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 2137
RE: Enemy carriers near SRA! - 2/20/2011 12:40:00 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline
Mmm, good points!
It's actually worse than I thought; a size 0 port so transport TFs can't unload at all :-\
Andy hasn't seen any reinforcements yet as only an AA unit has unloaded.

I'm air lifting a Port Support unit to the place from Soerabaja asap and converting all transports to amph TFs.
Will this enable us to fully or partially unload our amph TFs in a size 0 port?

Will try to attack the reduced Motor Bde next turn!

Yes, no more long range sweeps from Rangoon - but I still think it was right to try.
The hope was to inflict losses in a more favorable ratio but as commented long range and T-bolts makes this less likely.

If I set the elite Netties and Betties to attack at extreme range they most likely engage a target with a heavy CAP and gets slaughtered.

Some of the air support in the are is not provided by complete Base Force units but is detached air support from Air HQs.
These locations still don't field radar...



_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 2138
RE: Enemy carriers near SRA! - 2/20/2011 12:42:04 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


But he also gives him the advantage that sweeps have over CAP, which is not insignificant. You have to mix up.


Agree.

_____________________________


(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 2139
RE: Enemy carriers near SRA! - 2/20/2011 12:44:15 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline
CT; don't you think this sweep was quite good?
Seldom seen so many air units combined into one sweep (except from carriers)




Attachment (1)

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 2140
RE: Enemy carriers near SRA! - 2/20/2011 12:48:10 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
Dunno who "CT" is, but I think that's a delightful sweep, PzB.

_____________________________


(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 2141
RE: Enemy carriers near SRA! - 2/20/2011 1:01:31 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline
CT = Castor Troy 
One of his "ponies" has been the inability to coordinate fighter units in sweeps.

Yes, also found it delightful; unfortunately performance wasn't optimal.
No "remnant" fighters (ac in sections of 2, 3, 4) followed the main sweep either.

The use of a major air complex with sufficient air support and experienced air units were all positive factors.
Follow this receipt and your sweeps will become more coordinated!


_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 2142
RE: Enemy carriers near SRA! - 2/20/2011 1:06:30 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB
Follow this receipt and your sweeps will become more coordinated!


Recipe. Follow this 'recipe' and all your sweeps will become more coordinated.

_____________________________


(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 2143
RE: Enemy carriers near SRA! - 2/20/2011 1:09:02 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline
Thx, it's getting late 

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 2144
RE: Enemy carriers near SRA! - 2/20/2011 1:13:50 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB
Follow this receipt and your sweeps will become more coordinated!


Recipe. Follow this 'recipe' and all your sweeps will become more coordinated.


But if I pay for the recipe, can I get a receipt?

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 2145
RE: Enemy carriers near SRA! - 2/20/2011 1:23:44 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline
Next turn should be interesting....




Attachment (1)

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 2146
RE: Enemy carriers near SRA! - 2/20/2011 2:28:56 AM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

quote:

I'm air lifting a Port Support unit to the place from Soerabaja asap and converting all transports to amph TFs.
Will this enable us to fully or partially unload our amph TFs in a size 0 port?


Yes, but probably not the heavy equipment. Assuming it is your base....

A suggestion on your port attack plan: use your planes on level bombing at 9k feet. This reduces flak losses tremendously. You do NOT want to be dive/glide bombing a base of that size. They will still do plenty of damage if they have above average skills in GrdB.



_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 2147
RE: Enemy carriers near SRA! - 2/20/2011 10:06:20 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
How hard will it be to build a port there?
At lvl 0 unloading is painfully slow. I got around 15 Air Support, and 5 torpedoes, per turn, from unloading Air HQ. And I think it was from transport, not amphibious TF. DOes amphibous ships also unload faster at friendly ports? Try adding some barges.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok
A suggestion on your port attack plan: use your planes on level bombing at 9k feet. This reduces flak losses tremendously. You do NOT want to be dive/glide bombing a base of that size. They will still do plenty of damage if they have above average skills in GrdB.


But is there any substantial AA yet? Allies have better things to transport, than local AA, so they will probably need to march by land.

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 2148
RE: Enemy carriers near SRA! - 2/20/2011 10:37:00 AM   
Hortlund


Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB
I'm air lifting a Port Support unit to the place from Soerabaja asap and converting all transports to amph TFs.
Will this enable us to fully or partially unload our amph TFs in a size 0 port?

Is it possible to convert transport TF to amphib TF with troops on board? Arent the LCUs in strat-mode?

I dont think it matters how much naval support you fly in, I think you need a port. I think it is the same function as trying to mine a dot-base and then put an ACM there (tried it, doesnt work, the mines disperse as if in open ocean).


_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 2149
KB hits Darwin - 2/20/2011 12:55:35 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline
PzjH; No, I'm returnign the Transport TF to base, unload, chance op mode and reload.
This transport TF came all the way from China and was an ad-hoc reinforcement.

Looks like other troops unloaded well today; most of the Port unit has been airlifted - no heavy equipment there.
Building a port in a size 0(0) base with Jap engineers isn't a weekend activity

Mynok; I've never heard a more appropriate comment in my AAR career
- Of course the sillius soddus (me) forgot to set bombers to 9000 feet and had to pay a steep price for it.

Inq; yes - loads of ack ack guns and 30 LCUs reported.

Lets go through todays actions quickly:

The KB lined up perfectly, surface ships went in and cleared a small LCM and AK TF.
In PM phase an unsecorted Allied strike by Dauntlesses and Avengers was shredded.
- Our KB sweepers found 1!!! Corsair on CAP

In all 450 KB bombes hit Darwin; ca 100 enemy ac were destroyed including 13 Liberators, 8 Corsairs and 27 Lightnings.
Numerous more were damaged and 2 subs sunk in port.

Flak was very destrcutive; it pains my heart that over 60 KB bombers were shot down but I can only blame myself.
This was a lesson everyone should take not of; base strikes must bomb from 9000 feet.

Well, we can cover our losses; most attacking units lost 2-3-4 ac and reserve pilots and spare ac will quickly fill out losses
restoring KB to 98% readiness. The KB will now quickly move back into the shadows; 2 BBs and 2 CAs were detached for a high speed bombardment
run of Darwin. This is the bonus, can we inflict further casualties on the ground the loss of our KB bombers will be less hard to accept.

At Waingapoe no enemy CAP in the air; 110 Helens hit the place in poor weather.
I think we can suppress the place with air and sea bombardments.

The Luganville invasion was hit by our Netties and Betties again and a destroyer and the huge West Point AP were hit and left sinking.
Why is Andy using that huge liner for amp invasions? We got 300 men at Luganville


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Sep 27, 43

Sub - ASW Attacks

Sub needs to RTB for repairs.

ASW attack near Port Hedland at 57,129

Japanese Ships
SS I-30, hits 10

Allied Ships
BB Idaho
CA Vincennes
CA San Francisco
CL Mobile
CL Columbia
CLAA Juneau
DD DeHaven
DD Bush
DD Quadrant
DD Thracian
DD Vendetta
DD Hutchins

SS I-30 is sighted by escort
DD Quadrant attacking submerged sub ....
DD Thracian fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Vendetta fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Hutchins fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surface Combat - Bombardments

Again extremely poor bombardment results; problem is that ships fire at troops in jungle, NOT ports and airfields
Not a lot of shipping left at Darwin, a TF with cruisers and destroyers moved west at high speed during the night.
A huge LCM convoy was sunk though.

Night Time Surface Combat, near Waingapoe at 63,113, Range 2,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
BB Haruna
BB Yamato
BB Musashi
DD Akizuki
DD Teruzuki
DD Susuzuki
DD Hatsuzuki
DD Niizuki
DD Wakazuki
CL Ninaru

Allied Ships
PT-112, Shell hits 2
PT-113, Shell hits 4, and is sunk
PT-114, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
PT-129, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
PT-130, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Darwin at 76,124, Range 2,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CL Isuzu
DD Amatsukaze
DD Hamakaze
DD Arashi
DD Mutsuki
DD Kisaragi
DD Yayoi

Allied Ships
LCT-146, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
LCT-147
LCT-148
LCT-149
LCT-150
LCT-151
LCT-152
LCT-154
LCT-158, Shell hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
LCT-159, Shell hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
LCT-165, Shell hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage
LCT-166, Shell hits 7, heavy fires, heavy damage
LCT-167, Shell hits 5, and is sunk
LCT-168, Shell hits 4, and is sunk
LCT-169, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
LCT-323, Shell hits 2, and is sunk
LCT-328, Shell hits 3, and is sunk
LCT-352, Shell hits 4, and is sunk
xAK Am. Manufacturer, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
LCM 532A, Shell hits 2, and is sunk
LCM 532C, Shell hits 9, and is sunk
LCM 532D, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
LCM 532E, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
LCM 542A, Shell hits 1, and is sun
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Waingapoe at 63,113

Japanese Ships
BB Musashi
BB Yamato
BB Haruna
CL Ninaru
DD Wakazuki
DD Niizuki
DD Hatsuzuki
DD Susuzuki
DD Teruzuki
DD Akizuki

Allied ground losses:
83 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 5 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

F1M2 Pete acting as spotter for BB Musashi
BB Musashi firing at 7th Infantry Division
F1M2 Pete acting as spotter for BB Yamato
BB Yamato firing at 33rd Infantry Division
BB Haruna firing at 33rd Infantry Division
CL Ninaru firing at 33rd Infantry Division
DD Wakazuki firing at 7th Infantry Division
DD Niizuki firing at 7th Infantry Division
DD Hatsuzuki firing at 33rd Infantry Division
DD Susuzuki firing at 33rd Infantry Division
DD Teruzuki firing at 7th Infantry Division
DD Akizuki firing at 7th Australian Division

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

Morning Air attack on Waingapoe , at 63,113
Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 10 NM, estimated altitude 34,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 2 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 36

No Japanese losses

Aircraft Attacking:
36 x Ki-44-IIb Tojo sweeping at 30000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Waingapoe , at 63,113
Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 40 NM, estimated altitude 34,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IIb Oscar x 32
Ki-61-Ib Tony x 12

No Japanese losses

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x Ki-61-Ib Tony sweeping at 30000 feet
32 x Ki-43-IIb Oscar sweeping at 6000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Darwin , at 76,124
Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 28 NM, estimated altitude 31,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 30

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 1

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1 Corsair: 1 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
30 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 30000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Darwin , at 76,124
Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 12 NM, estimated altitude 35,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 22

No Japanese losses

Aircraft Attacking:
22 x A6M5 Zero sweeping at 30000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Waingapoe , at 63,113
Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 32 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-49-IIa Helen x 110

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49-IIa Helen: 10 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1 Corsair: 1 destroyed on ground
P-38F Lightning: 1 destroyed on ground

Allied ground losses:
4 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Airbase hits 6
Airbase supply hits 4
Runway hits 24

Aircraft Attacking:
26 x Ki-49-IIa Helen bombing from 6000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
28 x Ki-49-IIa Helen bombing from 6000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
26 x Ki-49-IIa Helen bombing from 6000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
30 x Ki-49-IIa Helen bombing from 6000 feet *
Port Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Luganville at 120,150
Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 45 minutes

Japanese aircraft
G3M3 Nell x 22
G4M1 Betty x 33

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 4

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M3 Nell: 2 destroyed, 7 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 3 destroyed, 10 damaged

Allied Ships
DD Nestor, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
DD Gansevoort
DD Gwin
DE Arrow
DD Thanet
xAP West Point, Torpedo hits 2, heavy damage
xAK Sawokla
DD Russell

Allied ground losses:
79 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled

Nestor dead in the water ...
West Point dead in the water ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Saumlaki at 78,117
Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 20,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 47 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 28
A6M5b Zero x 1

Allied aircraft
SBD-3 Dauntless x 10
TBF-1 Avenger x 18

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
SBD-3 Dauntless: 3 destroyed, 1 damaged
TBF-1 Avenger: 9 destroyed, 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
CL Isuzu

Aircraft Attacking:
1 x TBF-1 Avenger bombing from 5000 feet *
Naval Attack: 2 x 500 lb GP Bomb
6 x SBD-3 Dauntless bombing from 2000 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb
3 x TBF-1 Avenger bombing from 3000 feet *
Naval Attack: 2 x 500 lb GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Darwin , at 76,124
Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 160 NM, estimated altitude 21,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 41 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 58
B6N1 Jill x 122
D4Y1 Judy x 247

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
B6N1 Jill: 4 destroyed, 6 damaged
D4Y1 Judy: 16 destroyed, 57 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
PB4Y-1 Liberator: 9 destroyed on ground
F-4 Lightning: 1 destroyed on ground
P-38H Lightning: 12 destroyed on ground
TBF-1 Avenger: 4 destroyed on ground
SBD-3 Dauntless: 8 destroyed on ground
PB2Y-3 Coronado: 3 destroyed on ground
F4U-1 Corsair: 2 destroyed on ground
SBD-5 Dauntless: 2 destroyed on ground
PBY-5A Catalina: 1 destroyed on ground
PBY-5 Catalina: 1 destroyed on ground

Allied Ships
SS Drum, Bomb hits 3, and is sunk
SS Tinosa, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk

Allied ground losses:
5 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Airbase hits 38
Airbase supply hits 10
Runway hits 193
Port hits 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Darwin , at 76,124
Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 21,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 40 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 15
A6M5b Zero x 15
B6N1 Jill x 27
D4Y1 Judy x 18

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
B6N1 Jill: 1 destroyed, 8 damaged
D4Y1 Judy: 9 destroyed, 5 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-38H Lightning: 1 destroyed on ground
PBY-5 Catalina: 1 destroyed on ground

Runway hits 5
Port hits 7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Darwin , at 76,124
Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 160 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 53 minutes

Japanese aircraft
B6N1 Jill x 22

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
B6N1 Jill: 4 destroyed, 7 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
PB4Y-1 Liberator: 1 destroyed on ground
P-38H Lightning: 1 destroyed on ground

Airbase hits 4
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Darwin , at 76,124
Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 160 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 53 minutes

Japanese aircraft
B6N2 Jill x 15

Japanese aircraft losses
B6N2 Jill: 2 destroyed, 7 damaged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Invasions

Looks like the invasion TF is struggling after the West Point got hit.

Pre-Invasion action off Luganville
1 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
DE Arrow
xAP West Point, heavy damage
DD Russell
DD Thanet

DE Arrow fired at enemy troops
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 4,000 yards
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 1,000 yards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphibious Assault at Luganville
TF 99 troops unloading over beach at Luganville, 120,150

Allied ground losses:
51 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Motorized Support damaged beyond repair during unload of 14th NZ Bde /4

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground Combat

Now Andy knows we got reinforcements at Memboro!
We drive out the Motor Bde which is now a broken unit.

Ground combat at Memboro (63,112)
Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 7017 troops, 92 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 487
Defending force 1474 troops, 64 guns, 45 vehicles, Assault Value = 36

Japanese adjusted assault: 104

Allied adjusted defense: 31
Japanese assault odds: 3 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(+), disruption(-), preparation(-)
Attacker:

Allied ground losses:
491 casualties reported
Squads: 36 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 14 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 8 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 8 (5 destroyed, 3 disabled)
Vehicles lost 8 (7 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Units retreated 1

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
11th Garrison Unit /1
6th Guards Div /3
15th Garrison Unit
Kimura Det
4th Ind.Mixed Rgt /1
33rd Div /1
6th JNAF Coy
15th Naval Construction Battalion
52nd JNAF AF Unit
25th Air Flotilla
20th AA Regiment
22nd Port Unit /1

Defending units:
73rd Motorised Brigade
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Luganville (120,150)
Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 575 troops, 1 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 21
Defending force 156 troops, 0 guns, 1 vehicles, Assault Value = 10

Assaulting units:
II/81st Naval Guard Unit

Defending units:
14th NZ Bde /2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 63,127
Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 3265 troops, 16 guns, 346 vehicles, Assault Value = 252
Defending force 109 troops, 5 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 3

Allied adjusted assault: 364

Japanese adjusted defense: 1
Allied assault odds: 364 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: disruption(-), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
124 casualties reported
Squads: 12 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 8 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Units retreated 2
Units destroyed 1

Allied ground losses:
Units pursuing 1

Defeated Japanese Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
4th Armoured Brigade
10th Light Horse Battalion

Defending units:
II./4th Infantry Battalion
12th Garrison Unit /1
21st JAAF AF Bn /1

--------------------------------------------------------------

Counterattacks!




Attachment (1)

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to Hortlund)
Post #: 2150
RE: KB hits Darwin - 2/20/2011 2:00:20 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
No planes on CAP, could indicate, that in fact you closed airfield during night bombardment.
Remember, that it is number of dropped bombs, which counts. HELENs are flying at extended range, so if there is no closer airfield, it would be probably better to send BETTYs. They will get 2*250 kg, and 2*60 kg bombs each.

In WITP, I could build 1 lvl port, with 2 engineer units, in under a week (with 0 potential), but since in AE, 6 Engineer units needs 7 weeks, to build lvl 1 airfield (at 0 potential), it could be substantially more.
Anyway, I do not think ANYONE can say now, that ground AA is underrated. How many experienced pilots have you lost? And where are Allied CVs? They also retreated, with all other TFs? So in fact, Japan have again total air, and naval control over region?

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 2151
RE: Enemy carriers near SRA! - 2/20/2011 2:05:54 PM   
castor troy


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

Mmm, good points!
It's actually worse than I thought; a size 0 port so transport TFs can't unload at all :-\
Andy hasn't seen any reinforcements yet as only an AA unit has unloaded.

I'm air lifting a Port Support unit to the place from Soerabaja asap and converting all transports to amph TFs.
Will this enable us to fully or partially unload our amph TFs in a size 0 port?

Will try to attack the reduced Motor Bde next turn!

Yes, no more long range sweeps from Rangoon - but I still think it was right to try.
The hope was to inflict losses in a more favorable ratio but as commented long range and T-bolts makes this less likely.

If I set the elite Netties and Betties to attack at extreme range they most likely engage a target with a heavy CAP and gets slaughtered.

Some of the air support in the are is not provided by complete Base Force units but is detached air support from Air HQs.
These locations still don't field radar...





depending on what equipment you are going to send you need x amount of nav support to unload, guess this also works at a level 0 port (you just need more support than at a level 1). Like I´ve said, no idea for Japanese equipment but with 100 nav support I was able to unload every Allied equipment everywhere.

_____________________________


(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 2152
RE: Enemy carriers near SRA! - 2/20/2011 2:08:23 PM   
castor troy


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

CT; don't you think this sweep was quite good?
Seldom seen so many air units combined into one sweep (except from carriers)






I´ve noticed it in your combat report and was wondering about it already. My all time record so far has been something like 150 fighters in one sweep and this happened when the piece meal sweeps coming in first already knocked out every enemy fighter.

Still got no clue how to improve it and the fact that michaelm´s post about "coordination" stated that it doesn´t apply to sweeps I guess all is just a matter of die rolls, so every 1310th time you are going to see such a sweep, just like every week someone is winning a jackpot somewhere.

_____________________________


(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 2153
RE: KB hits Darwin - 2/20/2011 2:12:03 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
no Cap over Darwin, another Andy booh booh...

_____________________________


(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 2154
RE: KB hits Darwin - 2/20/2011 2:15:04 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline
We didn't bombard Darwin from the sea..air strike was first in.
If 50 T-bolts suddenly appear on CAP over Waingapoe I'd rather loose the average Helens than my elite Betties..!
- Will slowly base more Helens closer so they can carry their full load.

AA at low altitude works uber well. Jap AA was never good so I guess it's Allied flak at 9000k+ altitudes people ain't happy with.
Probably lost 50 KB pilots, hopefully the least experienced took the worst hits.

Allied carriers heading into Port Hedland or dissappeared from view in that area.
Lots of subs there but no contacts. So for now we got total air and sea supremacy.

This turn was again a mixed blessing:

A super long range (20-21 hexes) Nell strike from Port Blair hit a convoy at Madras and sank 2 AKs.
No CAP

At Luganville we hit and sank another couple of amph ships and 1100 casualties were reported.
This is the kind of attrition we like.

The bombardment of Darwin was a dissappointment; again all ships fired at LCUs
Very frustrating but nothing I can do about it.

All Helens stayed home and refused to bomb Waingapo; also frustrating since they're spread over 3 different bases.
Only sweepers went in and found a light CAP in place.

We now have most of 2 crack Inf divisions ashore on Waingapo.
The big question is whether I should land another 3 divisions and attempt to destroy the Allied bridgehead or keep these units
as a reserve force to counter potential follow up attacks.

I've not touched the large garrisons at Makassar etc. so we're not without emergency reserves.
A large division was moved up from Rabaul, 1 from Singapore and another 2 from China.


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Sep 28, 43

Surface Combat

Hate the PT boats, they are all around the place doing no good.

Night Time Surface Combat, near Endeh at 64,113, Range 2,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
DD Oboro
DD Tatsuyuke
DD Tadeyame

Allied Ships
PT-132
PT-133
PT-134
PT-135
PT-136
PT-138, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Endeh at 64,113, Range 2,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
DD Oboro
DD Tatsuyuke
DD Tadeyame

Allied Ships
PT-132
PT-133
PT-134
PT-135
PT-136, Shell hits 1, heavy fires
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Endeh at 64,113, Range 1,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
BB Nagato
BB Ise
CA Atago
CA Aoba
DD Urakaze
DD Usugumo
DD Amagiri
DD Hatakaze
DD Uruyuke

Allied Ships
PT-112
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat, near Endeh at 64,113, Range 18,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
DD Oboro
DD Tatsuyuke
DD Tadeyame

Allied Ships
PT-112, Shell hits 2, and is sunk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat, near Bathurst Island at 78,123, Range 22,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
BB Hiei
BB Kirishima
CA Myoko
CA Haguro
CA Mikuma
CL Kiso
DD Makigumo
DD Fujinami
DD Minegumo
DD Murasame

Allied Ships
xAK Mormacwave, Shell hits 8, and is sunk

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bombardments

Night Naval bombardment of Darwin at 76,124

Japanese Ships
BB Kirishima
BB Hiei
CA Mikuma
CA Haguro
CA Myoko
CL Kiso

Allied ground losses:
199 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 12 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 17 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Vehicles lost 4 (2 destroyed, 2 disabled)

E13A1 Jake acting as spotter for BB Kirishima
BB Kirishima firing at 40th Infantry Division
F1M2 Pete acting as spotter for BB Hiei
BB Hiei firing at 27th Infantry Division
E8N2 Dave acting as spotter for CA Mikuma
CA Mikuma firing at 41st Infantry Division
F1M2 Pete acting as spotter for CA Haguro
CA Haguro firing at 3rd Australian Division
CA Myoko firing at 40th Infantry Division
CL Kiso firing at 27th Infantry Division

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

Afternoon Air attack on Waingapoe , at 63,113
Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 17 NM, estimated altitude 33,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-61-Ib Tony x 13

Allied aircraft
P-38H Lightning x 2
P-47D2 Thunderbolt x 5
F4U-1 Corsair x 2

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-61-Ib Tony: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-38H Lightning: 1 destroyed
P-47D2 Thunderbolt: 1 destroyed
F4U-1 Corsair: 1 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x Ki-61-Ib Tony sweeping at 30000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Waingapoe , at 63,113
Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 11 NM, estimated altitude 30,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 14

Allied aircraft
P-38H Lightning x 1
P-47D2 Thunderbolt x 1

No Japanese losses
No Allied losses

Aircraft Attacking:
14 x A6M5 Zero sweeping at 30000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Madras at 35,40
Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
G3M3 Nell x 33

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M3 Nell: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied Ships
xAK Varela, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
xAK Salween
xAK Uffington Court, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
xAK Vancouver City

Aircraft Attacking:
31 x G3M3 Nell launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Luganville at 120,150
Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 45 minutes

Japanese aircraft
G3M3 Nell x 18
G4M1 Betty x 32

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 4

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M3 Nell: 5 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 3 destroyed, 4 damaged

Allied Ships
DE Arrow
DD Russell
DD Gwin
xAK Sawokla, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
DD Thanet
xAK Somelsdijk, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk

Allied ground losses:
1104 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 75 destroyed, 92 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 3 (3 destroyed, 0 disabled)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground Combat

Ground combat at Luganville (120,150)
Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 584 troops, 1 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 22
Defending force 421 troops, 0 guns, 7 vehicles, Assault Value = 17

Assaulting units:
II/81st Naval Guard Unit

Defending units:
14th NZ Bde /2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Broome (62,127)
Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 501 troops, 0 guns, 84 vehicles, Assault Value = 32
Defending force 0 troops, 5 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 2

Allied adjusted assault: 13
Japanese adjusted defense: 2

Allied assault odds: 6 to 1 (fort level 0)
Allied forces CAPTURE Broome !!!

Combat modifiers
Defender: op mode(-), disruption(-), preparation(-), morale(-)
Attacker: shock(+), leaders(-)

Japanese ground losses:
Units retreated 2

Defeated Japanese Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
10th Light Horse Battalion

Defending units:
12th Garrison Unit /1
II./4th Infantry Bn /1

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Long range LBA strike




Attachment (1)

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 2155
RE: KB hits Darwin - 2/20/2011 2:17:23 PM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: inqistor
Anyway, I do not think ANYONE can say now, that ground AA is underrated.



Of course I can! I thought to myselve how unrealistic it would be to stack 150 heavy flak guns into a Burmese jungle base to find out they take down 1.5-2% of the bombers at 10000ft. Andy thinks different about this and Andy´s results are coming from WAY MORE flak guns. Realistic numbers of flak achieves nothing in the game, while in this case, also light and medium flak fired of course. Just stay above 40mm Bofors range and all is well, only suffering near to real life losses if your opponent stacks a completely unrealistic number of flak guns somewhere (which Andy for example is doing).

Just had this discussion with my PBEM opponent when my total Allied aircraft losses are nearly at 9700 in 6/44 with 250 lost to flak, roughly 2.5%. Yes, 250. The Japanese lost more, 600, out of 13000 lost in total. And no, we are NOT not using our flak units. And then the consensus so far has been that real life flak losses were somewhere around 25-30% of total losses. Both my opponent and me have always been aware to stay over light and medium flak gun range of course, only when we were attacking ships the bombers were going in lower.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 2/20/2011 2:22:05 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 2156
RE: KB hits Darwin - 2/20/2011 3:12:27 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline
But you've probably also noticed that my LBA sweeps and bomber missions don't have those 2-3-4 ac tailing behind the main attacks?
In general I'm experiencing less problems with this than you do CT. Would be interesting to hear about other players experiences for comparison!


_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 2157
RE: KB hits Darwin - 2/20/2011 3:20:59 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

We didn't bombard Darwin from the sea..air strike was first in.


I was talking about Waingapoe. I do not think, you can close Darwin in one go. Hover above Waingapoe, and check, what are reported damages.
One thing for sure - you should send there around two Divisions, to slower Allied LCU recovery.
Also, there should be some AA units with radars. I do not think, you can transport radar by air, but you probably could fast transport them in DDs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor
Anyway, I do not think ANYONE can say now, that ground AA is underrated.



Of course I can! I thought to myselve how unrealistic it would be to stack 150 heavy flak guns into a Burmese jungle base to find out they take down 1.5-2% of the bombers at 10000ft.



Technically Bofors is MG, so it should have much greater ROF, than heavy AA guns. How is heavily damaged by AA fire, but able to fly out, plane counted? If it crash during return, is this OP lose, or Flak?
I always considered Japan Flak loses as substantial. There is hard, even attacking only 2 transports, to not get some planes damaged. On the other side, only Japan BBs seems to actually shot down attacking Allied planes. Anything smaller have trouble with even damaging them. But if I have to guess, it is because wrong model of Planes Armor, not AA routine, or Japan guns.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 2158
RE: KB hits Darwin - 2/20/2011 4:17:36 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline
We now have AA units with radar in Memboro!
Also 55k supplies and 1100 AV.

Looking at reinforcements coming in I see that in addition to the forces already in place at Memboro we can insert a further 4 divisions, 1 regiment and a tank regiment within a week or so.
7 divisions is enough to smash Waingapo!


_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 2159
RE: KB hits Darwin - 2/20/2011 4:46:29 PM   
vonTirpitz


Posts: 511
Joined: 3/1/2005
From: Wilmington, NC
Status: offline
It is pretty simple to observe that missions suffer increased operational losses when flak has damaged lots of planes. The same is true for damaged planes that go down after air to air action has been completed.

Increased operational losses appears to be a direct result of accumulated damage that occurs throughout the combat mission.


quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Technically Bofors is MG, so it should have much greater ROF, than heavy AA guns. How is heavily damaged by AA fire, but able to fly out, plane counted? If it crash during return, is this OP lose, or Flak?
I always considered Japan Flak loses as substantial. There is hard, even attacking only 2 transports, to not get some planes damaged. On the other side, only Japan BBs seems to actually shot down attacking Allied planes. Anything smaller have trouble with even damaging them. But if I have to guess, it is because wrong model of Planes Armor, not AA routine, or Japan guns.


_____________________________


(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 2160
Page:   <<   < prev  70 71 [72] 73 74   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Enemy carriers near SRA! Page: <<   < prev  70 71 [72] 73 74   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

1.094