RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson

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: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson

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: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson

Page: << < prev 21 22 [23] 24 25 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/20/2012 8:19:39 AM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

Here's what happened on the ground at Iloilo:

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 661

RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/20/2012 8:21:48 AM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

Operation Beat-Down at Clark Field is proceeding exceedingly slowly.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 662

RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/20/2012 8:25:21 AM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

This is what happened at Makassar:

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 663

RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/20/2012 8:28:29 AM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

And I finally captured Singkawang. Finally. Now to install some Nells there with an HQ for torps and some AF guys.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 664

RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/20/2012 3:07:19 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

Here's the daily losses:

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 7/20/2012 3:08:18 PM >

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 665

RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/21/2012 4:15:57 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

Okie Dokie.....It's Saturday 07:10 and I've processed Jim's latest moves and so here's the report for 10Jan42:

Ambon's defenders fire at my invaders:

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 666

RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/21/2012 4:18:56 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

An air strike hits Clark Field and again no Allied damage is reported.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 667

RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/21/2012 4:22:24 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

I'm surprised by the number of P-40's at Port Moresby in an unescorted raid and sustain some losses.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 668

RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/21/2012 4:27:34 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

A couple of my Lilly's were damaged in a raid on Lautem which didn't seem to do much.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 669

RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/21/2012 4:31:49 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

One Zero seems to be enough to prevent the Dutch from sinking my ship in an airstrike near Billiton

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 7/21/2012 4:32:50 PM >

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 670

RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/21/2012 4:35:14 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

Two Zero's seemd to deter a British airstrike on Kushing.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 671

RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/21/2012 4:38:02 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

There's a small subsurface contest near Sydney:

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 672

RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/21/2012 4:40:04 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

The Japs finally capture Iloilo:

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 673

RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/21/2012 4:42:03 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

Not much happened on the ground at Clark Field. I just GOTTA move some more troops in there.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 674

RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/22/2012 2:26:58 AM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

I'm going through my moves just now and I noticed the button on the ship display for changing the HQ of the ships in the TF. I've been rushing past doing my moves to where the TF needs to go and forgetting all about the advantages of having the correct HQ for the TF. I guess I'm saying: here's fair warning that I'm going to pay more attention to that little button from now on. I'm just saying.........

EDIT: I'm also saying I'm going to be more careful where I'm putting the HQ units themselves. I've been more or less been hit or miss in where an HQ unit goes but I'm going to find them all and position them better. Not a threat........I'm just saying.........

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 7/22/2012 2:34:59 AM >

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 675

RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/22/2012 2:44:56 AM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

lemme see the picture before I try to explain this thing.

EDIT: Okie dokie....now that tlhe 39th Road Const Co has arrived at Samarinda I can move TF 174 to Samarinda to pick up the 146th Inf Rgmt and move it to points SW. Closer to Palembang. Hopefully somewhere that has a port and an airfield. I may have to look into the need to move ENGR's to the new spot. Think ahead, I keep forgetting to do that.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 7/22/2012 2:48:16 AM >

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 676

RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/22/2012 3:12:32 AM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

I found the 3rd Fleet HQ unit at Namlea ( or spelled diffferently Namlae sometimes ) and I'm moving an AA unit there to help protect the planes and the HQ unit. I'm debating whether or not to move some land combat troops there too. Lemme think about it some more.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 677

RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/22/2012 5:02:17 AM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

Here's TF 248 and TF 297 which are ordered into the Palembang hex as of tomorrow morning in the wee am hours of the day so as to do some invasive landings and some protective bombardment. And there may be some mines in that hex so I'm taking a chance that some ship, 1 or more, may hit a mine. D'oh. Those DMS ships I had in the hex had only three days to process that hex and I'm not sure they found and dispatched every mine yet. So we'll see what happens.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 678

RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/22/2012 12:31:33 PM

moore4807

Posts: 1089
Joined: 6/2/2000
From: Punta Gorda FL
Status: offline

I just noticed this in Larry's report. Does anyone have an explanation, or where to find this out?

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 679

RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/22/2012 1:35:03 PM

koniu

Posts: 2763
Joined: 2/28/2011
From: Konin, Poland, European Union
Status: offline

Min bombard is what close ship can go to shore during bombard.
When zero there is no limit. 1 mean 1000 yards. 2 mean 2000.

You should use it when you want to save ammo from short range AA guns (setting range bigger than those guns have) or enemy have heavy coastal defense and you what to avoid being hit.

Bigger range mean your ships are safer but also bombardment effect is smaller.

There is also another option below picture. "no escort bombard"
That mean than CL or bigger ships will only bombard and DD and smaller not. DD have no armor and CD guns can sunk them easy
If you change it, all ships will bombard.

_____________________________

"Only the Dead Have Seen the End of War"

(in reply to moore4807)

Post #: 680

RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/22/2012 2:02:46 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

Yeah, what he said. I always use 16, meaning 16,000 yards as the min closing range to shore. That way even the DD's can fire a gun or two in bombardment.

(in reply to koniu)

Post #: 681

RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/22/2012 11:21:29 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

Okie dokie.......It's Sunday 15:19 and I've received Jim's moves and this is the combat results from 11Jan42:

One DD hit a mine at Palembang and I don't have any more information about the ship, sorry. Other than that
the bombardment went off as scheduled and I got a lot of hits on aircraft parked there. I'm hoping none of the
oil refineries are damaged. I guess I should have thought about that before I scheduled the bombardment.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 682

RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/22/2012 11:24:40 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

I got a hit on a Tanker just outside of the port at SFO.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 683

RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/22/2012 11:28:03 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

Another expensive raid on Singapore. I sure hope these raids are worth it. I'm losing a lot of planes. I'm hoping that the Allies aren't able to build up their forts any higher than they already are.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 684

RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/22/2012 11:31:29 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

Operation Beat-Down at Clark Field is proceeding slowly. I'm not sure what kind of damage is being done by these raids.....not much I'm guessing. But it's better than loosing people to ground attacks.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 685

RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/22/2012 11:34:11 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

Jim is already testing my defenses at Singkawang. My Zero's are CAP-ing just fine though.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 686

RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/22/2012 11:37:07 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

More proof that my Zero's are CAP-ing just fine is this attack halfway between Singers and Paley.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 687

RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/22/2012 11:39:36 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

My lack of Air Support for the fighters is showing it's ugly head again. Yet again the bombers raid Port Moresby unescorted and get shot up. I may have to stand them down for a bit.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 688

RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/22/2012 11:42:40 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

I did an airstrike on Lautem and it didn't seem to accomplish much of anything.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 689

RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/22/2012 11:47:15 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

I finally captured Ambon. That was a hard fight and took several shipments of troops. I gotta remember to overdo the first load so as to avoid the second and third trips into gunfire range.