RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D

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: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3

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: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3

Page: << < prev 47 48 [49] 50 51 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/12/2011 6:54:00 PM

traskott

Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline

Alfred is right!!!

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 1441

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/12/2011 7:46:26 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

New Guinea is tough to do and make progress in lots of bad terrain

India not much better

Looking at both but options are not great in either direction

With the greatest respect, that is the wrong attitude.

You don't actually have to make much progress in either location. What you have to do is to fix in position the enemy forces so that the local reserves can't be relocated to mass against your schwerpunkt elsewhere.

Alfred

+10

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 1442

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/12/2011 8:54:44 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Kindo of agree

A renewed offensive in Burma sucks Japanese resources that way
I will need to take the risk and attack PM soon
Plus probably going to have to consider a reasonable attack into NG out of NE Australia.

I would love to go ahead and hit Timor but my fleet simply isnt up to it at present

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 1443

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/12/2011 9:06:25 PM

traskott

Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline

Once your bases at Darwin, Broome and so are up and running, perhaps an small island hoping campaign should be availabe: Jumping to dot bases, building them, increasing the pressuere over D.E.I. can be a valid tactic: You don't need the uber 9/9/9 base, just be able to be able to deploy warplanes a bit more deep on the DEI, and a bit more, and.. well xDDD u know...

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1444

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/12/2011 10:05:36 PM

veji1

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline

All these are valid tactics while you regroup for the next assault : you have lost yourself 5 months probably, in the meanwhile, just bleed him in Burma, advance in NG under LBA carpeting and build up all north oz so that you have many supporting bases from which you could launch the next assault on the DEI. If you are not in a centpac mood, you can basically keep the pressure on the DEI and attrit the japs before the next bang.

_____________________________

Adieu � Dieu odieux... sign� Adam

(in reply to traskott)

Post #: 1445

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/12/2011 10:15:41 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Aye probably spending turns just now sorting out my air force and assigning sensible areas of operation

One of the issues I had in the last campaign was I ended up quite unbalanced in terms of air types in bases.

Various objectives are being considered and various options evaluated nothing is totally ruled out although an attack on Line Islands is sorta ruled out for now

(in reply to veji1)

Post #: 1446

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/13/2011 11:18:40 PM

Heeward

Posts: 343
Joined: 1/27/2003
From: Lacey Washington
Status: offline

Joining your AAR late:

You have to start winning the information war - multi-phase / multi - base Long Range Search, and submarine picket lines.

You have to prepare your forces - Do you have the right leaders for the job - Quite a lot of your leader are managers not warriors. You need Benedict Arnold not Charles Lee (Revolutionary War Generals btw) in charge.

It appears that task force order makes a difference in engagement order - so if you are going to use PT boats as a screening force - give them low TF numbers. Make sure you support forces have high ones - the enemy may be ammo depleted before reaching them

As you have not destroyed the enemy trained pilot base you need to engage his land / naval air forces in a favorable nutritional battle. This means killing pilots at a rate of airframes you can afford to loose. Protect your pilots by assigning a submarine to be in the target hex. Lifeguarding works in this game.

With the impairment of your naval air arm - you are limited to advancing by land or covered by land base air. This means the Solomons, Burma, or New Guinea.

Given the results of your naval battles any amphibious operations must be extremely short time wise that last no more then two days - anything on site after that you have to be willing to sacrifice.

In addition you need to disrupt you opponent - forcing him to waste / disperse resources. As a minimum a Two Front war. One of those is Burma because you can walk there

< Message edited by Heeward -- 3/13/2011 11:21:56 PM >

_____________________________

The Wake

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1447

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/14/2011 12:30:34 AM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

I have attacks (mostly air) under way in the Burma theatre

Over the last 10 days PZB has not capped Warangai and the AF was open thwe qwhole time transports and PBY evacuated 20,000 men from the base including the whole of the 7th Aus Div, and about half of the other three combat Divs.

Why PZB let me do this no idea but he did and it was welcome.

A lot of support units will be captured but the combat rifle sections will return to fight again.

I am reorganising the air forces again

P38's/USMC SBD's and Corsairs and 12 Sqns of B24's will remain in northern Australia to keep that theatre active
In Burma the RAF and USAAF are starting to hit again
In CENTPAC it will be quiet for a while

(in reply to Heeward)

Post #: 1448

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/14/2011 12:33:58 AM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Going to hit out in three directions from SOPAC

A drive into the Solomons in limited strength
PM and Terapo as soon as I am redeployed probably 4 - 6 weeks
Merauke at some stage and other islands up the side of New Guinea.

From here on out no quiet re orging I need to keep constant albeit low level pressure on

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1449

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/14/2011 1:10:28 AM

Blackhorse

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

quote:

You need Benedict Arnold not Charles Lee (Revolutionary War Generals btw) in charge.

Andy's problem may have been that Benedict Arnold was in charge . . . of his CV CAP!

Substitute 'Nathaniel Greene' in place of Arnold, and I agree with that statement.

OT: For the non-Americans among us, Arnold was a competent, aggressive American Revolutionary War commander who had a falling out with his superiors and turned traitor; foiled in a plot to betray West Point, he escaped and joined the British. Charles Lee was a competent, cautious commander -- George Washington's deputy -- who had altogether too much respect for the British foe, and too much contempt for the soldiers of his own Continental Army. It was a blessing for the American cause when he was captured by the British. (Shaara's The Glorious Cause)

Good luck Andy. Nice job 'Dunkerquing' Warangai. Perhaps wars are not won by masterly withdrawals, but rescuing the combat heart of 4 divisions will give added heft to your next offensives.

_____________________________

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 Heeward)

Post #: 1450

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/14/2011 3:51:31 AM

Heeward

Posts: 343
Joined: 1/27/2003
From: Lacey Washington
Status: offline

Poor Charles - Marched ahead of his troops - stayed at a comfy inn and was captured in his dressing gown by Banastre Tarleton - made the latter's career. George got a bad deal exchanging (Charles that is).

Make sure you pull at least one flight load from each of your units - especially the support ones. They will rebuild over time. You can not afford the destruction of any of your land units.

What is the point score?
I suggest you do a quick count of capabilities Allies vs Japan
CV/CVL Air Capacity
CVE Air Capacity
Modern BB
Old BB
CA/CL
Old CA/CL
Then assess on average what is your fleet capabilities with an assumption that the IJN has Ship Experience of 70 and Leaders with Exp of 70 in appropriate skills, vs your own ship's exp and leadership. Consider an appropriate weight for your Radar vs his Torpedoes.

_____________________________

The Wake

(in reply to Blackhorse)

Post #: 1451

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/14/2011 7:41:55 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

So far

7th Aus Div (80% evacced only really 25 pounders and some mot support left)
2nd Aus Div (60% evacced - about a Bdes worth of Inf left and 25 pounders)
33rd US Div (30% evacced)
7th US Div (30% evacced)
11th East African Div (40% Evacced)

Overall I am reasonably happy managed to get out well over 20,000 men including valuable Bren, Vickers, 3" Morter and Aus Inf Sections.

(Lets not mention the CAP again bad bad memories)

I think PZB has seriously underestimated the ability of 2 SEABEE REGIMENTS ability to keep AF's open - only thing I can think of for decison not to LRCAP it for 10 precious days.

BB's had destroyed all 50,000 unloaded supply by day 7 so evac was the only course open to me.

At least one more day of evac possible see what happens.

In other news I am splitting my fleet - I know I know but its the only decision open to me for now.

I cannot hit KB for a while I have 3 Operational Fleet Carrier and 3 more that will be repaired.

Fuel in SOPAC is only 200k so there is no point in sending heavy units to NZ/SOPAC or even SWPAC I cannot fuel them with PH - Australia route severed - so it has to be light units and CVE's (good fuel economy) that gets the job done.

I am aiming on operating 5 main Forces

PACIFIC - US Pacific Fleet with Convoy Command (East), 3rd Fleet and COMSUBPAC under command
INDIAN OCEAN - Eastern Fleet with Convoy Command (West), 5th Fleet and RN Dutch and USN Sub Flotillas
WEST AUSTRALIA & DEI - 5th Fleet - with a convoy escort group and several sub flotillas
SOPAC - Light Task Group of Destroyers and Light Cruisers covered by a small TF of escort carrier and Heavy Cruisers plus numberous subs.

This mix is not optimal but reality is I can only sustain fleet operations on reasonable scale in two locations IO or Pacfic - in no other theatre can I mass enough fuel to operate a 1,000 ship invasion armada and thats my goal for th enext attack....

(in reply to Heeward)

Post #: 1452

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/14/2011 7:49:22 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Hmm, you got yourself into this by meeting KB with less than the maximal CV forces you could bring to bear whilst conducting operations in sequence in the absence of concommittant pinning operations in other theatres.

Your solution is to split your CV forces whilst conducting operations in sequence ( as opposed to concommittantly ) whilst still not conducting significant pinning operations in other theatres.

It reminds me of General Melchett in Blackadder goes forth when he tells Blackadder that the new plan for attacking the German lines hinges on surprise.... the surprise that they are going to march slowly over no-man's land at a walking pace towards machineguns in EXACTLY the same way as they did the previous 16 times when they all got cut down.

You need to reconsider this. You aren't combining your forces strategically and operationally, lack of attention to detail leading to your invasion wave splintering long before it arrived at the invasion site, the lack of concommittant operations designed to spread the Japanese forces and the lack of pinning operations. You can make each of these deficiencies good in your planning yet you don't do so.

Sorry to be such a downer Andy but I just don't see how you can examine your last 2 or 3 operations and come up with such a similar ( strategically speaking ) plan and have any confidence that you are heading for anything other than another disaster.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 3/14/2011 8:01:04 PM >

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1453

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/14/2011 8:09:33 PM

traskott

Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Hmm, you got yourself into this by meeting KB with less than the maximal CV forces you could bring to bear whilst conducting operations in sequence in the absence of concommittant pinning operations in other theatres.

Your solution is to split your CV forces whilst conducting operations in sequence ( as opposed to concommittantly ) whilst still not conducting significant pinning operations in other theatres.

It reminds me of General Melchett in Blackadder goes forth when he tells Blackadder that the new plan for attacking the German lines hinges on surprise.... the surprise that they are going to march slowly over no-man's land at a walking pace towards machineguns in EXACTLY the same way as they did the previous 16 times when they all got cut down.

You need to reconsider this. You aren't combining your forces strategically and operationally, lack of attention to detail leading to your invasion wave splintering long before it arrived at the invasion site, the lack of concommittant operations designed to spread the Japanese forces and the lack of pinning operations. You can make each of these deficiencies good in your planning yet you don't do so.

Sorry to be such a downer Andy but I just don't see how you can examine your last 2 or 3 operations and come up with such a similar ( strategically speaking ) plan and have any confidence that you are heading for anything other than another disaster.

+1.

With that new redeployment of the fleet what you got is what PzB dream: Your forces in smaller pieces, easy meal for the KB..

If u don't have fuel, put all allied xAKs to load fuel. Make a good and clean plan of logistic deployment, and began to be familiarized with micromanagement

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 1454

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/14/2011 10:00:03 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

I would accept that criticism of Line islands but last campaign had every carrier aircraft I had (1200) of them so 1.5:1 or pretty close to it advantage and better quality aircraft. I made a whole different set of errors in the DEI campaign (the only carriers not part of my fleet were about 2 new build (1 CVE and 1 CVL) that arrived after I sortied

I think the whole point is I am not intending to fight relying on my fleet for 6 months.

ll I can sustain in the SOPAC are light units and a couple of CVE's for heloing to pick off raiders I am intending on not being caught by KB and if they are so be it I over concentrated twice and paid for it.

Next time I attack I am spreadign out I will put pressure on in Burma in Sumatra, in DEI, in NG, in CENTPAC but I am not committing to a fight with KB unless I have 3:1 advantage given what happened to my CAP I have zero faith in it

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Hmm, you got yourself into this by meeting KB with less than the maximal CV forces you could bring to bear whilst conducting operations in sequence in the absence of concommittant pinning operations in other theatres.

Your solution is to split your CV forces whilst conducting operations in sequence ( as opposed to concommittantly ) whilst still not conducting significant pinning operations in other theatres.

It reminds me of General Melchett in Blackadder goes forth when he tells Blackadder that the new plan for attacking the German lines hinges on surprise.... the surprise that they are going to march slowly over no-man's land at a walking pace towards machineguns in EXACTLY the same way as they did the previous 16 times when they all got cut down.

You need to reconsider this. You aren't combining your forces strategically and operationally, lack of attention to detail leading to your invasion wave splintering long before it arrived at the invasion site, the lack of concommittant operations designed to spread the Japanese forces and the lack of pinning operations. You can make each of these deficiencies good in your planning yet you don't do so.

Sorry to be such a downer Andy but I just don't see how you can examine your last 2 or 3 operations and come up with such a similar ( strategically speaking ) plan and have any confidence that you are heading for anything other than another disaster.

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 1455

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/14/2011 10:02:32 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

ps my Fleet and Light carriers and main battle fleet are either going to operate from IO OR Pacific not both those are the only bases I can fight from.

Traskott buidling up fuel in Australia via Perth and Capetown is aq long term effort that I will struggle to achieve given the distances involved - I had built up a healthy strategic surplus and its reduced a lot now

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1456

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/14/2011 10:10:55 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

FWIW I'm with the others. Don't divide your CV's Andy....

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1457

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/14/2011 10:16:52 PM

Tullius

Posts: 1174
Joined: 11/18/2004
From: Saxony (Germany)
Status: offline

quote:

I am not committing to a fight with KB unless I have 3:1 advantage

I do not know how many CV you have lost but i would risk a carrier when i can damage or sink a japanese CV. I would even accept a 1.5:2 loss ratio. In my opinion he can not afford to lose a CV because every lost CV will seriously hurt his offensive potential.

When i remember right the Marquez Island are still in the japanese hands. I would consider these area as ideal for a strategic trap (like Midway 1942 but this time reversed). It is in "your" corner and PzB has long way to go to ship supplies and troops. When you threat an invasion (maybe you show him only a lot of AK without troops) it could be that PzB will send his forces in this corner and gives you the possiblity to fight a decisive battle. And perhaps you have still forces which could start attacks at other places - nothing too serious but enough to gain attention.

_____________________________

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1458

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/14/2011 10:30:05 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

I aint splitting my CV's I am detaching 2 CVE's and Long island for anit raider action in SOPAC whichever theatre I pick IO or paciic all casrriers will vbe there

(in reply to Tullius)

Post #: 1459

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/14/2011 10:31:25 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

AndyMac,

The last campaign had every CV you had BUT occurred only after you lost other carriers in other campaigns where they had been split. In addition the other two strategic errors were very much in play in that operation.

As for the CAP. Yeah you got unlucky but your operation was already well and truly in trouble by your failure to check that the engineers etc were in the first wave AND had radar sets and not landing on enough islands.

You rushed strategically - thus not having enough to take multiple islands on Day 1. You rushed operationally - not having your ships all in the same wave with a good combat mix of combat and support troops. So you paid the price. I don't say this to be unkind but I think focusing on the CV exchange is an error here. Even if you'd gotten a draw with the CV vs CV battle PzB was still likely to be able to recapture that base.

I am pointing it out because this has been the pattern of previous campaigns and I don't see evidence of the root and branch rethink which would change that pattern. Will you still win? Sure, the Allies get so much that they can suffer 3 or 4 disasters and still win BUT the aim should be to improve one's play, not just get the win.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Tullius)

Post #: 1460

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/15/2011 3:54:23 AM

Heeward

Posts: 343
Joined: 1/27/2003
From: Lacey Washington
Status: offline

"Next time I attack I am spreading out I will put pressure on in Burma in Sumatra, in DEI, in NG, in CENTPAC but I am not committing to a fight with KB unless I have 3:1 advantage given what happened to my CAP I have zero faith in it"

How long will it take you to build this superiority? Meanwhile what can your opponent be doing?
How are you going to put pressure on Sumatra / DEI / CENTPAC without commiting your fleet?

When I finally looked at the map - I immediately thought Boyo Andy has his fangs out and throat extended on the block. And PZB brought out his axe, as well as his sword, mace and pocket guillotine. Then I saw your land battle - He had six and a third divisions there - literally a reinforced army. You landed elements of six divisions - without significant armored support. Not even 1 to 1 odds and your coming across the beach on surf boards and rubber duckies. I suspect that if had done a shock attack on the second day you would have lost the lot. Can you say tip over the foogas and drop the match?

Your foe has four mobile tools - How are you going to render them ineffective
1. CV force and /or trained pilot pool.
2. Land Base Air and/ or trained pilot pool.
3. Surface Combat Forces - I cringed at your cruiser vs his battleships engagements.
4. Air Transport of Land Forces.

Burma gives you an Air / Land battle - directly targeting number 2 on the list, and with poor planning on his part #4.
Your Naval Forces must be committed only under the protection and reconnaissance of Land Based Air, or in short term smash and grab operations with the objective of destroying enemy units.

Sit back and consider your strategic objective?
Operationally How are you going to accomplish this?

Last thoughts - before your garrison falls at Warangai - swap out the competent leaders.

< Message edited by Heeward -- 3/15/2011 5:54:08 AM >

_____________________________

The Wake

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 1461

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/15/2011 2:58:27 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

6 months or more - this is not going to be quick.

When all my cripples are repaired I will have carrier parity at about 900 aircraft

Over the next 6 months I recieve about 40 Escort Carriers (1200 aircraft)
Maybe 4 or 5 CV's - 450 Aircraft
Several CVL's say another 150.

So by mid 44 I will have about 2,700 carrier aircraft v maybe 1,300 of his.

My plan such as it is is to put pressure on him at Ramree Island on the burma coast, at Schwebo in North Burma, at Bhamo in north Burma and finaly if I see an opportunity at the Andaman Islands - altough this will be only considered if I see evidence of major committment to Pacific.

Did I make mistakes at Warangai - yes fully accept that but I was about to fix them by landing a lot of force on Roti and Koepang and my carriers were there to either pick of battleships or go toe to toe with KB in the prospect that I would win.

BUT it didnt happen cest la vie my pilots were ok my escorts were heavy no LBA intervened so it was a straight CV v CV battle and lost.

Fair play to PZB but when I lost I had to abandon the invasion of Koepang and Roti - I should have kept the carriers as close support for the invasion but chose not to and then we all know what happened

(in reply to Heeward)

Post #: 1462

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/15/2011 10:29:52 PM

traskott

Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline

Well, although overall the campaign has been a fiasco, the chance of been able to pull out all those squads have been like Dunkirk to Churchill: You still have enough masse to be able to attack...

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1463

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/17/2011 3:01:18 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

had a few weird ones last few days

Lost Barnes she had 28 Hellcats on board on CAP but LR Nells killed her with no cap not sure why

Warangai held on for two more days.

End result of my evac is I lost about 20,000 men.

2nd Aus (60%)
7th Aus (90%)
7th US (45%)
33rd US (52%)
11th East African (66%)
73rd Motorised Bde (64%)

Overall I got out about 2/3 of the combat troops with large numbers of disabled squads coming out on the last two days.

All formations will be ready in a few months so I ill prep them for somewhere in NG probably.

Not going to call the evac a susccess as the whole campaign has been a fiasco.

Next moves are firming up

1. Advance into NG Merauke/Terapo/PM probably
2. Start an attritional battle in Burma
3. Start hitting Ramree and Andaman Islands to make PZB think I am heading that way

(in reply to traskott)

Post #: 1464

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/17/2011 3:06:47 PM

beppi

Posts: 382
Joined: 3/11/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

had a few weird ones last few days

Lost Barnes she had 28 Hellcats on board on CAP but LR Nells killed her with no cap not sure why

Warangai held on for two more days.

End result of my evac is I lost about 20,000 men.

2nd Aus (60%)
7th Aus (90%)
7th US (45%)
33rd US (52%)
11th East African (66%)
73rd Motorised Bde (64%)

Overall I got out about 2/3 of the combat troops with large numbers of disabled squads coming out on the last two days.

All formations will be ready in a few months so I ill prep them for somewhere in NG probably.

Not going to call the evac a susccess as the whole campaign has been a fiasco.

Next moves are firming up

1. Advance into NG Merauke/Terapo/PM probably
2. Start an attritional battle in Burma
3. Start hitting Ramree and Andaman Islands to make PZB think I am heading that way

28 looks like a replacement squad. Replacements squads do not fly CAP even if the CVE is not overloaded, if you want to use the replacement carriers in combat, remove the replacement squads and put marine fighter squads on the carriers.

< Message edited by beppi -- 3/17/2011 3:07:55 PM >

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1465

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/17/2011 4:19:15 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Hmm are you sure they flew CAP in stock WITP if not overloaded (yes it was a replacement group)

If they no longer fly CAP then it was my own fault as I assumed this was the same as stock

(in reply to beppi)

Post #: 1466

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/17/2011 4:38:17 PM

beppi

Posts: 382
Joined: 3/11/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Hmm are you sure they flew CAP in stock WITP if not overloaded (yes it was a replacement group)

If they no longer fly CAP then it was my own fault as I assumed this was the same as stock

No i am not 100% sure, would have to conduct some testing or if anyone knows for sure possible he can comment. I just remember i tried it a year or so ago and they failed to fly. Never tried it again since then.

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1467

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/17/2011 4:54:56 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

ouch ok then its my own fault waste of a CVE - in WITP they did fly CAP mission

(in reply to beppi)

Post #: 1468

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/17/2011 5:08:41 PM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: beppi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

had a few weird ones last few days

Lost Barnes she had 28 Hellcats on board on CAP but LR Nells killed her with no cap not sure why

Warangai held on for two more days.

End result of my evac is I lost about 20,000 men.

2nd Aus (60%)
7th Aus (90%)
7th US (45%)
33rd US (52%)
11th East African (66%)
73rd Motorised Bde (64%)

Overall I got out about 2/3 of the combat troops with large numbers of disabled squads coming out on the last two days.

All formations will be ready in a few months so I ill prep them for somewhere in NG probably.

Not going to call the evac a susccess as the whole campaign has been a fiasco.

Next moves are firming up

1. Advance into NG Merauke/Terapo/PM probably
2. Start an attritional battle in Burma
3. Start hitting Ramree and Andaman Islands to make PZB think I am heading that way

28 looks like a replacement squad. Replacements squads do not fly CAP even if the CVE is not overloaded, if you want to use the replacement carriers in combat, remove the replacement squads and put marine fighter squads on the carriers.

replacement squads do fly CAP, escort, sweep just like every other squadron does. I�ve got plenty of VR squadrons in use and all of them work, so the same should apply for British squadrons. Didn�t even know they had replacement squadrons.

_____________________________

(in reply to beppi)

Post #: 1469

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/17/2011 5:09:47 PM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Hmm are you sure they flew CAP in stock WITP if not overloaded (yes it was a replacement group)

If they no longer fly CAP then it was my own fault as I assumed this was the same as stock

they fly just fine in my version of AE which is running the latest official patch. Either it was a bug or you have screwed up a setting. My AAR is full of combat reports that show VR squadrons on Cap. They also fly sweeps and escort missions.

edit:

here�s an example I found within a minute from my AAR, guess this says more than my words

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR May 26, 44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kudat , at 69,86

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid detected at 21 NM, estimated altitude 42,500 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 26

Allied aircraft
Hellcat I x 12
F6F-3 Hellcat x 126

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zero: 9 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Hellcat I: 2 destroyed

CAP engaged:
No.1839 Sqn FAA with Hellcat I (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 38800.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 18 minutes
VC(F)-21 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 7 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 38800.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 14 minutes
VC(F)-39 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 34000 and 35000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 35 minutes
VC(F)-41 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 38800.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 16 minutes
VC(F)-65 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 38800.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 17 minutes
VOC(F)-1 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 38800.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 15 minutes
VC(F)-3 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 38800.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 9 minutes
VC(F)-4 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 38800.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 35 minutes
VC(F)-5 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 15 minutes
VRF-2F with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 37000 and 38800.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 10 minutes
VRF-4F with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 38000 and 38800.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 11 minutes
VRF-6F with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 32000 and 38800.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 14 minutes
VRF-7F with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 38800.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 15 minutes

< Message edited by castor troy -- 3/17/2011 5:13:33 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1470

Page: << < prev 47 48 [49] 50 51 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3