RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J)

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: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J)

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: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J)

Page: << < prev 71 72 73 [74] 75 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 4/17/2018 2:13:59 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo

Fighter Escort Questions

for

The War College

1.) Should you set your Naval Attack Dive Bombers at 10,000 feet, at what elevation would you set your escort fighters.

2.) Should you set your Naval Attack Torpedo bombers at 6,000 feet, at what elevation would you set your escort fighters?

Best Regards,

-Terry

Since I was asked by PM to chime in here are my thoughts:

IIRC the range to get DBs to dive bomb is 10-14k. I set mine in the middle at 12k. Outside of this band they will level or glide bomb, at least as I understand it.

I typically leave my torpedo bombers at the game default of 6k. Have never seen a reason not to, except when giving them a secondary mission. For a secondary mission of ground support (which they are better at than dive bombers) I set them anywhere from 3k to 9k depending on the flak I expect at the target. For a secondary mission of airfield bombing I set at 12k.
The height adjustment for the secondary mission has no impact on the torpedo mission as they will drop to torpedo height no matter what height they fly to the target at.

As for escorting fighters, Alfred recently mentioned that setting escorts at the same altitude as the bombers is the best way to ensure a coordinated strike. However, I think most players perceive strike coordination to be multiple squadrons of bombers all flying at the same time instead of going in penny packets and not so much as fighters coordinating with bombers to escort.
I don't typically tailor my escort altitude to align with the bombers as the fighters also have a more primary mission of CAP and the altitude I need them to be at for CAP is more important to me than the altitude I need them to be at to escort bombers. And IIRC either in the manual or staed long ago by a dev, fighters will adjust to flay at 2k higher than the bombers they are escorting no matter what altitude you have them set at.

I typically set my carrier dive bomber squadrons to 30% search and torpedo bombers to 10% search.

I'm by no means an air expert in this game, but do find my preferred settings to be effective.

< Message edited by HansBolter -- 4/17/2018 2:18:07 PM >

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to Rio Bravo)

Post #: 2191

RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 4/19/2018 1:45:49 AM

Rio Bravo

Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo

Fighter Escort Questions

for

The War College

1.) Should you set your Naval Attack Dive Bombers at 10,000 feet, at what elevation would you set your escort fighters.

2.) Should you set your Naval Attack Torpedo bombers at 6,000 feet, at what elevation would you set your escort fighters?

Best Regards,

-Terry

Since I was asked by PM to chime in here are my thoughts:

IIRC the range to get DBs to dive bomb is 10-14k. I set mine in the middle at 12k. Outside of this band they will level or glide bomb, at least as I understand it.

I typically leave my torpedo bombers at the game default of 6k. Have never seen a reason not to, except when giving them a secondary mission. For a secondary mission of ground support (which they are better at than dive bombers) I set them anywhere from 3k to 9k depending on the flak I expect at the target. For a secondary mission of airfield bombing I set at 12k.
The height adjustment for the secondary mission has no impact on the torpedo mission as they will drop to torpedo height no matter what height they fly to the target at.

As for escorting fighters, Alfred recently mentioned that setting escorts at the same altitude as the bombers is the best way to ensure a coordinated strike. However, I think most players perceive strike coordination to be multiple squadrons of bombers all flying at the same time instead of going in penny packets and not so much as fighters coordinating with bombers to escort.
I don't typically tailor my escort altitude to align with the bombers as the fighters also have a more primary mission of CAP and the altitude I need them to be at for CAP is more important to me than the altitude I need them to be at to escort bombers. And IIRC either in the manual or staed long ago by a dev, fighters will adjust to flay at 2k higher than the bombers they are escorting no matter what altitude you have them set at.

I typically set my carrier dive bomber squadrons to 30% search and torpedo bombers to 10% search.

I'm by no means an air expert in this game, but do find my preferred settings to be effective.

Hans-

Thank you. I appreciate it that you answered promptly upon receiving my IM.

I guess I didn't really have to set the escort aircraft elevation.

I took your advice for search percentages for the dive and torpedo bombers.

Don't be a stranger, Hans. Jump in here anytime you feel like posting something; anything.

Best Regards,

-Terry

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 2192

RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 4/19/2018 7:40:55 PM

tarkalak

Posts: 289
Joined: 6/26/2017
From: Bulgaria
Status: offline

Dive Bombers at 15 000 feet will also dive bomb. I checked it with Coral Sea scen.

Best Regards

_____________________________

I do not know what is scarier: that I do understand nothing of this demonic script or that I am starting to see the demons that it evokes.

Me, studying for a PHD entry exam in Applied Mathematics.

(in reply to Rio Bravo)

Post #: 2193

RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 4/19/2018 8:52:03 PM

Rio Bravo

Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tarkalak

Dive Bombers at 15 000 feet will also dive bomb. I checked it with Coral Sea scen.

Best Regards

tarkalak-

Welcome to The War College!

IT appears that the general consensus is to set dive bombers from 10,000 to 14,000 feet elevation. However, as you mentioned the bombers will also dive from 15,000 feet elevation.

I have my dive bombers presently set at 10,000 feet elevation.

I think next turn I am going to adjust my dive bombers to dive from 12,000 feet.

Thank you for your input.

Best Regards,

-Terry

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to tarkalak)

Post #: 2194

RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 4/19/2018 9:25:10 PM

Rio Bravo

Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline

After Action Report

for January 1, 1944

Highlights for Today

1.) It is nice to have Thunderbolts in China and on Formosa.

2.) Operation Hello El Lobo (The Return to Formosa) left the Marianas Islands today.

Synopsis of Combat Action for Today

1.) Allied Bombardment of Pagan.

101 Japanese casualties.

1 damaged (H8K2 Emily).
1 destroyed (A6M5 Zero).

4 hits (Airbase).
10 hits (Runway).
9 hits (Port).
1 hit (Port Supply).

No Allied losses.

2.) Air Combat at Talaud-elanden.

No Japanese losses.

2 destroyed Beaufighter X).
1 destroyed (F4F-3 Wildcat).

3.) Allies Bomb Moulmein.

32 Japanese casualties.

2 destroyed (Ki-44c Tojo).

12 damaged (B-25C Mitchell).
6 damaged (B-25D1 Mitchell).

4.) Japanese Bomb near Kunming.

No Japanese losses.

37 Japanese casualties.

5.) Allies Bomb Chaochow.

2,976 Japanese casualties.

2 destroyed (N1K1-J George).
1 destroyed (N1K2-J George).
2 Destroyed (Ki-84a Frank).

5 Destroyed (P-47D2 Thunderbolts).
7 damaged (B-24D1 Liberators).
3 destroyed and 6 damaged (B-24J Liberators).
1 damaged (PB4Y-1 Liberator).

6.) Japanese Bomb Kagi.

6 destroyed (N1K1-J George).
10 destroyed (Ki-49-a Helen).

1 destroyed (P-47D2 Thunderbolt).

7.) Allied Artillery Bombards near Takao (hex 85,66).

50 Japanese casualties.

No Allied losses.

Attached below as a link is the entire Combat Report for January 1, 1944.

Best Regards,

-Terry

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Rio Bravo -- 4/22/2018 3:33:04 AM >

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to Rio Bravo)

Post #: 2195

RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 4/20/2018 12:07:21 AM

Rio Bravo

Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline

After Action Report

for January 2, 1944

Highlights for Today

1.) Heavily bombed for days; battered and disrupted Japanese troops manage to capture Cahochow, China.

2.) Captain Haggard has a good day on the high seas; causes fire on 1 Japanese CL, causes heavy damage to 2 Japanese xAKs, and hits a Japanese DD.

3.) Japanese deliberately attack Australian Armor near Tsuyung, China and get hammered (2,767 Japanese casualties).

4.) Japanese deliberately attack Kagi on Formosa and get shredded (16,117 Japanese casualties).

5.) Operation Hello El Lobo (Allied Return to Formosa) is 1,400 miles and 5 days from Pescadores.

Synopsis of Combat Action for Today

1.) Allied Submarine Ventilates Japanese CL near Amami Oshima .

CL Abukuma: 1 torpedo hit; on fire.

SS Devilfish: 4 hits.

2.) Japanese E Boats Sink Allied Submarine near Amami Oshima(hex 100,64).

No Japanese losses.

SS Pargo: 28 hits; sunk.

3.) Allied Submarine Flames Japanese xAK near Daito Shoto (hex 103,72).

xAK Shinon Maru: 2 torpedo hits; heavy fires; heavy damage.

No Allied losses.

4.) Allied Submarine Trashes Japanese xAK near Iwo-Jima (hex 103,73).

xAK Kinsyu Maru: 2 torpedo hits; on fire; heavy damage.

No Allied losses.

5.) Allied Submarine Hits Japanese DD near Dadjangas (hex 78,94).

DD Usuguma: 1 torpedo hit.

No Allied losses.

6.) Allies Bomb Moulmein.

48 Japanese losses.

2 destroyed (Ki-44-IIc Tojo).

12 damaged (B-25C Mitchell).
1 destroyed and 6 damaged (B-25D1 Mitchell).

7.) Japanese Bomb Chaochow.

No Japanese losses.

145 U.S. Marine casualties.

8.) Allies Bomb Chaochow.

1,325 Japanese casualties.

3 destroyed and 6 damaged (B-24D1 Liberator).
1 destroyed and 8 damaged (B-24J Liberator).
1 destroyed and 9 damaged (PB4Y-1 Liberator).

9.) Japanese Bomb Kagi.

3 damaged (Ki-49-IIb Helen).
6 destroyed (Ki-84r Frank).
4 destroyed (Ki-100-I Tony).

1 destroyed (P-47D2 Thunderbolt).

10.) Japanese Deliberate Attack near Tsuyung (hex 67,45).

2,767 Japanese casualties.

265 Australian casualties.

11.) Japanese Deliberate Attack at Kagi.

16,117 Japanese casualties.

2,613 Allied casualties.

12.) Japanese Deliberate Attack at Chaochow.

13 Japanese casualties.

260 U.S. MArine casualties.
1 unit destroyed.
Japanese capture Chaochow.

13.) Japanese Artillery Bombard near Kunming (hex 71,48).

No Japanese losses.

35 Chinese casualties.

14.) Allied Artillery Bombard near Takao (hex 85,66).

18 Japanese casualties.

No Allied losses.

Attached below as a link is the entire Combat Report for January 2, 1944.

Best Regards,

-Terry

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Rio Bravo -- 4/22/2018 3:32:42 AM >

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to Rio Bravo)

Post #: 2196

RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 4/22/2018 3:32:14 AM

Rio Bravo

Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline

After Action Report

for January 3, 1944

Highlight for Today

1.) El Lobo said hello to Allied Operation Hello El Lobo today by heavily damaging two (2) Allied AKAs carrying ground forces.

2.) The Operation Hello El Lobo Fleet is 1,120 miles from Pescadores.

Synopsis of Combat Action for Today

1.) Japanese Destroyers Hit Two Allied Submarines near Dadjangas (hex 79,93).

No Japanese losses.

SS Herring: 1 hit.
SS Nautilus: 1 hit.

2.) Allied Naval Bombardment at Pagan).

17 Japanese casualties.

1 damaged (N1K1-J George).

5 hits (Airbase).
15 hits (Runway).
7 hits (Port).
1 hit (Port Supply).

No Allied losses.

3.) Japanese Nells Attack Operation Hello El Lobo Fleet near Ulithi (hex 96,89).

1 destroyed and 4 damaged (G3M3 Nell).

AKA Oberon: 1 torpedo hit; heavy damage.
AKA Bellatrix: 1 torpedo hit; heavy damage.

4.) Allies Bomb Moulmein.

108 Japanese casualties.

2 destroyed (Ki-44-IIc Tojo).
1 destroyed (Ki-84a Frank).

12 damaged (B-25C Mitchell).
1 destroyed and 9 damaged (B-25D1 Mitchell).

5.) Japanese Bomb near Kunming.

No Japanese losses.

43 Chinese casualties.

6.) Japanese Bomb Chaochow.

No Japanese losses.

206 Chinese casualties.

7.) Allies Bomb Chaochow.

1,611 Japanese casualties.

1 destroyed (N1K1-J George).

2 destroyed and 9 damaged (B-24D1 Liberator).
1 destroyed and 13 damaged (B-24J Liberator).
3 damaged (PB4Y-1 Liberator).

8.) Allied Artillery Bombardment near Takao (hex 85,66).

37 Japanese casualties.

No Allied losses.

Attached below as a link is the entire Combat Report for January 3, 1944.

Best Regards,

-Terry

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to Rio Bravo)

Post #: 2197

RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 4/22/2018 11:11:06 AM

Rio Bravo

Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline

Operation Hello El Lobo

The Allied Return to Amoy, China; Pescadores; and Formosa

January 3, 1944

There are flames on the horizon,
Evil in the form of the Red Sun.

There is danger on the High Sea.
In the form of that evil enemy.

Background

1.) The Allies successfully invaded Amoy, China; Pescadores, and Formosa on September 23, 1943.

2.) The Allies remain in firm control of Amoy and Pescadores.

3.) El Lobo has heavily reinforced his strength on Formosa and has taken back Taichu, Karemko, and Hengchun. Kagi is presently under siege.

4.) The Allies have approximately 2,500 AV on Formosa. The Japanese have over 7,000 AV on Formosa.

5.) The Japanese control the sea surrounding Formosa and the sky above Formosa.

Operation Hello El Lobo

The mission of Operation Hello El Lobo is to deliver ground forces, aircraft, fuel, and supply to China, Pescadores, and Formosa as follows:

1.) 1,390 AV.

2.) 236 Fighter aircraft; 216 Dauntless Dive Bombers; and 64 Recon aircraft.

3.) 685,000 supply.

4.) 593,592 fuel.

Aircraft Carrier Escort

1.) Along with numerous and substantial Surface Combat Task Forces, United States Aircraft Carriers will escort the Transport Task Forces to Pescadores and from Pescadores back to Guam.

2.) Order of Battle for the Aircraft Carriers is as follows:

26 Carriers

8 CV
6 CVL
12 CVE

Aircraft Capacity: 1,226 Aircraft Assigned: 1,198

622 Fighters
349 Dive Bombers
227 Torpedo Bombers

Type of Aircraft

532 F6F-3 Hellcat
90 FM-1 Wildcat
135 SB2C-1C Helldiver
214 SBD-5 Dauntless
105 TBF-1 Avenger
122 TBM-1C Avenger

Anticipated Carrier Battle

1.) El Lobo has made it crystal clear that he intends to fight for Formosa.

2.) Accordingly, it is anticipated that El Lobo will sortie his Aircraft Carriers to attack the Operation Hello El Lobo fleet.

3.) The Allies intend to spring a trap for El Lobo's Aircraft Carriers as follows:

-The Main Fleet will attempt to draw El Lobo's carriers southwest; putting some distance between the Japanese carriers and the Japan Home Islands.

-Several Allied Destroyer Task Forces consisting of Destroyers and numerous Allied Submarines have been strategically positioned outside the Main Fleet and will attempt to get behind and to the flanks of El Lobo's Carriers in an attempt to surround them.

-At the time opportunity might present itself, two Allied Carrier Task Forces consisting of 8 CV and 6 CVL; two substantial Surface Combat Task Forces consisting of 4 BB, 6 CA, 3 CL, and 12 DD; and numerous other DD Task Forces will leave the Main Fleet and charge straight at the last sighting of the Japanese Carriers.

4.) The goal is to engage El Lobo's Carriers and by surrounding them, hopefully finish off some crippled Japanese Carriers as they head back to the Japan Home Islands.

5.) If the anticipated Carrier Battle occurs, 12 CVE, one substantial Surface Combat Task Force, and several DD Task Forces will continue toward Pescadores with the Transport Task Forces.

6.) If the anticipated Carrier Battle does not occur on the way to Pescadores, the entire Operation Hello El Lobo Fleet will continue to Pescadores and the trap will be orchestrated for the return to Guam.

End Note

The Operation Hello El Lobo Fleet is 1,120 miles from Pescadores.

Best Regards,

-Terry

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to Rio Bravo)

Post #: 2198

RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 4/23/2018 2:35:55 PM

zuluhour

Posts: 5244
Joined: 1/20/2011
From: Maryland
Status: offline

28 hexes......

(in reply to Rio Bravo)

Post #: 2199

RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 4/24/2018 8:28:44 AM

CaptBeefheart

Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline

Good luck!

There is a question on another AAR as to whether it is a good idea to mix CVEs and CVs in the same task force. People more knowledgeable than me are pontificating on the subject.

I know I cautioned you gents against such mixing prior to the Marianas operation, but I'll admit to less than omniscience regarding matters pertaining to this game's mechanics. Have you noticed any pros or cons in grouping CVEs and CVs (and CVLs, of course) together?

Cheers,
CC

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to zuluhour)

Post #: 2200

RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 4/24/2018 2:52:03 PM

Rio Bravo

Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline

After Action Report

for January 4, 1944

Highlight for Today

1.) Admiral Dork forgot to move an Allied AKV Task Force with the Operation Hello El Lobo Fleet.

2.) The mistake was costly as El Lobo hammered the AKV Task Force; sinking three and heavily damaging a fourth AKV.

3.) The AKVs El Lobo hammered were carrying 50 Thunderbolts and 32 Spitfire VIIIs. I suspect all of those 82 aircraft are lost.

4.) Lastly, the Operation Hello El Lobo Fleet will have to remain positioned so that the remaining four AKVs can catch-up and join the Fleet. Accordingly, the Allies lose a full day moving toward Pescadores.

Synopsis of Combat Action for Today

1.) Allied Naval Bombardment at Pagan.

35 Japanese casualties.

4 hits (Airbase).
1 hit (Airbase Supply)
19 hits (Runway).
3 hits (Port).

No Allied losses.

2.) Allied Submarines Trash a Japanese SC and an xAK near Daito Shaito (hex 102,70).

SC CHa-63: 1 torpedo hit; heavy damage.
xAK Imizu Maru: 1 torpedo hit; on fire; heavy damage.

No Allied losses.

3.) Japanese Nells Attack Allied DDs near Guam (hex 101,85).

1 destroyed and 3 damaged (G3M3 Nell).

No Allied losses.

4.) Japanese Frances and Mavis Hammer Allied AKVs near Ulithi (hex 96,80).

4 damaged (P1Y1 Frances).
1 destroyed (H6K4 Mavis).

xAKV Engadine: 2 torpedo hits; sunk.
xAKV Clan Macdonald: 3 torpedo hits; sunk.
xAKV Malancha: 3 torpedo hits; sunk.
xAKV Hammondsport: 2 torpedo hits; on fire; heavy damage.

Note: CR shows only 18 Spitfire VIIIs lost. However, I think 50 Thunderbolts and 32 Spitfire VIIIs were lost.

5.) Allies Bomb Moulmein.

27 Japanese casualties.

1 destroyed (Ki-44-IIc Tojo).
2 destroyed (Ki-84a Frank).

1 destroyed and 12 damaged (B-25c Mitchell).
1 destroyed and 9 damaged (B-25D1 Mitchell).

6.) Japanese Bomb near Kunming (hex 71,48).

No Japanese losses.

19 Chinese casualties.

7.) Japanese Bomb near Chaochow (hex 82,60).

No Japanese losses.

127 U.S. Marine casualties.

8.) Japanese Bomb Chaochow.

No Japanese losses.

124 Chinese casualties.

9.) Allies Bomb Chaochow.

654 Japanese casualties.

4 damaged (B-24D1 Liberator).
1 destroyed and 6 damaged (B-24J Liberator).
1 destroyed and 2 damaged (PB4Y-1 Liberator).

10.) Allied Artillery Bombards near Takao (hex 85,66).

31 Japanese casualties.

No Allied losses.

Attached below as a link is the entire Combat Report for January 4, 1944.

Best Regards,

-Admiral Dork

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)

Post #: 2201

RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 4/24/2018 2:54:34 PM

Rio Bravo

Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

28 hexes......

zuluhour-

Welcome to The War College!

I think that we might need lots of that popcorn as I suspect heavy fighting will occur.

Best Regards,

-Terry

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to zuluhour)

Post #: 2202

RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 4/24/2018 3:11:34 PM

Rio Bravo

Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

Good luck!

There is a question on another AAR as to whether it is a good idea to mix CVEs and CVs in the same task force. People more knowledgeable than me are pontificating on the subject.

I know I cautioned you gents against such mixing prior to the Marianas operation, but I'll admit to less than omniscience regarding matters pertaining to this game's mechanics. Have you noticed any pros or cons in grouping CVEs and CVs (and CVLs, of course) together?

Cheers,
CC

Commander Cody-

From what I gather, mixing CVEs with CVs or CVLs slows down the Task Force as the CVEs move slower than do the CVs and CVLs.

Accordingly, some have indicated that mixing CVEs with CVs and CVLs makes all the carriers more vulnerable to Japanese Naval Attack as the Task Force's reduce speed also slows their ability to maneuver to avoid hits.

When the Allies invaded the Marianas Islands and Amoy, China, Pescadores, and Formosa, I did not care about the speed of the Carriers as I intended to keep all the Carriers right with the slow-moving Transport Task Forces to protect the Transport Task Forces. Furthermore, I had suspected that mixing CVEs with the CVs and CVLs would give the Japanese more targets to hit and that might help to save the CVs and CVLs from being the only targets. As it turned out, my assumption was correct as only two CVs were hit. The rest of the Carriers hit were CVEs and CVLs.

However, this time, the Allies want a Carrier Battle with El Lobo. Accordingly, I have not mixed CVEs with the CVs and CVLs. This time, I want the CVs and CVLs to move fast to charge straight at the KB and engage them in battle.

Having said what I have said above, I am sure that there are many others in this forum that have a much better handle as to exactly why the prevailing view is to never mix CVEs with CVs and CVLs. I do not agree that CVEs should NEVEER be mixed with CVs and CVLs. I think that there may be occasions, depending on what the Allies are attempting to accomplish, that it may be prudent to mix CVEs with CVs and CVLs. Naturally, I could be wrong (sure would not be the first time).

Best Regards,

-Terry

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)

Post #: 2203

RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 4/24/2018 3:57:31 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

Costly mistake.

Lost many of the reinforcing airframes and a good number of a very limited asset, the AKVs.

Learn the lesson of using the follow command.

For the move from the Mariana's to Formosa one TF should be leading with all others following.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to Rio Bravo)

Post #: 2204

RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 4/24/2018 4:49:35 PM

Rio Bravo

Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Costly mistake.

Lost many of the reinforcing airframes and a good number of a very limited asset, the AKVs.

Learn the lesson of using the follow command.

For the move from the Mariana's to Formosa one TF should be leading with all others following.

Hans-

Yes, I mentioned it was a costly mistake.

Task Force 34 is leading the Operation Hello El Lobo Fleet to Pescadores and has since leaving the Marianas Islands.

I simply forgot to set the AKV Task Force to follow Task Force 34 as I had set all other Task Forces.

I was rushed for time, stoned, and goofed.

*laughing hard*

Best Regards,

-Terry

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 2205

RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 4/24/2018 5:08:48 PM

Rio Bravo

Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline

After Action Report

for January 5, 1944

Highlight for Today

1.) The Operation Hello El Lobo Fleet is 840 miles from Pescadores.

2.) No KB in sight.

Synopsis of Combat Action for Today

1.) Allied PFs sink a Japanese Submarine near Catanduanes (hex 93,81).

SS I-25: 41 hits; sunk.

No Allied losses.

2.) Japanese PB Hits Allied Mine at Hex 80,92).

PB Daiya Maru: 1 mine hit; heavy damage.

No Allied losses.

3.) Japanese Bettys Attack the Operation Hello El Lobo Fleet near Lagaspi (hex 93,82).

3 destroyed (G4M1 Betty).

No Allied losses.

4.) Japanese Bettys Attack Allied DDs near Daito Shoto (hex 94,75).

4 damaged (G4M1 Betty).

No Allied losses.

5.) Japanese Bomb near Kunming (hex 71,48).

No Japanese losses.

17 Chinese casualties

6.) Japanese Bomb near Chaochow.

No Japanese losses.

167 Chinese casualties.

7.) Japanese Bomb ChaoChow.

1 damaged (Ki-21-IIb Sally).

23 Chinese casualties.

8.) Allied Artillery Bombard near Takao (hex 85,66).

119 Japanese casualties.

No Allied losses.

Attached below as a link is the entire Combat Report for January 5, 1944.

Best Regards,

-Terry

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to Rio Bravo)

Post #: 2206

RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 4/25/2018 5:18:26 AM

Rio Bravo

Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline

After Action Report

for January 6, 1944

Highlights for Today

1.) As the Operation Hello El Lobo Fleet gets closer to its destination (one hex west of Pescadores), the fighting intensifies.

2.) El Lobo came after the Hello El Lobo Fleet, but fortunately did little damage and lost 25 aircraft in the process to only 2 Allied Hellcats.

3.) The Operation Hello El Lobo Fleet is 840 miles Southeast of Pescadores.

4.) Tomorrow scares me as the Fleet will remain out of the LRCAP distance for Allied fighters on Formosa, yet vulnerable to Japanese aircraft within striking range. *laughing hard*

Synopsis of Combat Action for Today

1.) Japanese E Boat Hits Allied Submarine near Itabayat Islaned (hex 84,69).

No Japanese losses.

SS Grouper: 1 hit.

2.) Japanese E Boat Drills Allied ACM near Batan Island (hex 85,69).

No Japanese losses.

ACM YP-283: 4 hits; on fire.

3.) Allied Submarine Pierces Japanese xAK near Miyako-jima (92,66).

xAK Gyoko Maru: 1 torpedo hit; on fire.

No Allied losses.

4.) Allied DDs Wake-up Japanese Submarine near Saipan (hex 105,86).

SS I-39: 6 hits.

No Allied losses.

5.) Japanese Betties Pummel Crippled Allied ACM near Hengchun (hex 84,67).

No Japanese losses.

ACM YP-283: heavy fires; heavy damage.

6.) Allied Carrier Fighters Down Japanese Betties near Batan Island (hex 89,75).

11 destroyed (G4M1 Betty).

No Allied losses.

7.) Japanese Nells Attack Allied DDs near Ishigaki (hex 91,72).

1 destroyed and 5 damaged (G3M3 Nell).
13 destroyed (N1K1-3 George).

DD Woodworth: 1 torpedo hit; on fire.

2 destroyed (F6F-3 Hellcat).

8.) Japanese Bomb near Kunming (hex 71,48).

1 damaged (Ki-49-IIb Helen).

13 Chinese casualties.

9.) Japanese Bomb Chaochow.

1 damaged (Ki-21-IIb Sally).

37 Chinese casualties.

10.) Allied Artillery Bombards near Takao (hex 85,66).

31 Japanese casualties.

7 Guns Lost: 2 guns destroyed and 5 guns disabled.

Attached below as a link is the entire Combat Report for January 6, 1944.

Best Regards,

-Terry

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to Rio Bravo)

Post #: 2207

RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 4/26/2018 12:15:12 PM

Rio Bravo

Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline

After Action Report

for January 7, 1944

Highlights for Today

1.) The morning broke upon the Operation Hello El Lobo Fleet steaming across the Philippine Sea 560 miles southeast of Pescadores.

2.) As the Operation Hello El Lobo Fleet approached Itbayat Island, all hell broke loose.

3.) The whereabouts of the KB remains unknown.

Synopsis of Combat Action for Today

1.) The substantial amount of naval and air combat today presents a rather time consuming task to relay such combat activities by individual locations of battle. A task this scribe is far too lazy to tackle this morning. Accordingly, I will present the combined losses for today, under the following categories as follows:

Ground losses

2,693 Japanese casualties.
36 Allied casualties.

Aircraft losses

80 destroyed.
91 destroyed

12 damaged.
31 damaged.

Ship Losses

Japanese Ship Losses

CL Katori: 1 bomb hit.
DD Minegumo: 1 bomb hit; on fire.
DD Karii: 2 bomb hits; on fire; heavy damage.
SS I-15: 8 hits; heavy damage.
SS I-45: 10 hits; heavy damage.
PB Eifuku Maru: Sunk.
PB Kiso Maru: Sunk.
PB Nikkai Maru: Sunk.
PB Hakkaisan Maru: Sunk.
AK Yamasimo Maru: 2 torpedo hits; on fire; heavy damage.
xAK Hankow Maru: 1 bomb hit; heavy fires.
xAK Josho Maru: 3 bomb hits; heavy fires; heavy damage.
xAK Kokuryo Maru: 3 bomb hits; heavy fires; heavy damage.
xAK Hoeisan MAru: 2 bomb hits; heavy fires; heavy damage.
xAKL Kofuku Maru: 1 bomb hit; on fire.

Allied Ship Losses

DD Sigourney: 1 hit.
SS Hoe: 8 hits.

End Note

I suppose the Allies can't complain as they held their own, didn't have any damage to any aircraft carrier, and are one step closer to unloading reinforcements at Amoy, Pescadores, and Takao. However, watching 48 F6F-3 Hellcats (mostly those that were land-based at Pescadores) splash into the sea in flames was a bit tough on the nervous system.

Attached below is the entire Combat Report for January 7, 1944.

Best Regards,

-Terry

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to Rio Bravo)

Post #: 2208

RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 4/26/2018 12:22:48 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

I hope you have your replenishment carriers operating in the intended capacity and along for the ride?

If so those 48 fighter losses would be made up on the spot.

I can't see making a deep penetration where airframe attrition would make my fleet vulnerable without having replenishment carriers included in the operation.

I recently started a thread on the proper use of these carriers and provided examples of just how well they kept my combat carrier flush with airframes through the start of my Mariana's operation.

Hope you caught that thread and the significance of using the replenishment carriers in their intended role.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to Rio Bravo)

Post #: 2209

RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 4/26/2018 5:27:11 PM

adarbrauner

Posts: 1496
Joined: 11/3/2016
From: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo

After Action Report

for January 7, 1944

Highlights for Today

1.) The morning broke upon the Operation Hello El Lobo Fleet steaming across the Philippine Sea 560 miles southeast of Pescadores.

2.) As the Operation Hello El Lobo Fleet approached Itbayat Island, all hell broke loose.

3.) The whereabouts of the KB remains unknown.

Synopsis of Combat Action for Today

1.) The substantial amount of naval and air combat today presents a rather time consuming task to relay such combat activities by individual locations of battle. A task this scribe is far too lazy to tackle this morning. Accordingly, I will present the combined losses for today, under the following categories as follows:

Ground losses

2,693 Japanese casualties.
36 Allied casualties.

Aircraft losses

80 destroyed.
91 destroyed

12 damaged.
31 damaged.

Ship Losses

Japanese Ship Losses

CL Katori: 1 bomb hit.
DD Minegumo: 1 bomb hit; on fire.
DD Karii: 2 bomb hits; on fire; heavy damage.
SS I-15: 8 hits; heavy damage.
SS I-45: 10 hits; heavy damage.
PB Eifuku Maru: Sunk.
PB Kiso Maru: Sunk.
PB Nikkai Maru: Sunk.
PB Hakkaisan Maru: Sunk.
AK Yamasimo Maru: 2 torpedo hits; on fire; heavy damage.
xAK Hankow Maru: 1 bomb hit; heavy fires.
xAK Josho Maru: 3 bomb hits; heavy fires; heavy damage.
xAK Kokuryo Maru: 3 bomb hits; heavy fires; heavy damage.
xAK Hoeisan MAru: 2 bomb hits; heavy fires; heavy damage.
xAKL Kofuku Maru: 1 bomb hit; on fire.

Allied Ship Losses

DD Sigourney: 1 hit.
SS Hoe: 8 hits.

End Note

I suppose the Allies can't complain as they held their own, didn't have any damage to any aircraft carrier, and are one step closer to unloading reinforcements at Amoy, Pescadores, and Takao. However, watching 48 F6F-3 Hellcats (mostly those that were land-based at Pescadores) splash into the sea in flames was a bit tough on the nervous system.

Attached below is the entire Combat Report for January 7, 1944.

Best Regards,

-Terry

No no, lazy lazy. Cannot understand anything . More details waited for.

(in reply to Rio Bravo)

Post #: 2210

RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 4/26/2018 5:55:51 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

adarbrauner - you can get the details in the combat report that shows as an attachment at the bottom of his post.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to adarbrauner)

Post #: 2211

RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 4/26/2018 6:05:01 PM

adarbrauner

Posts: 1496
Joined: 11/3/2016
From: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy
Status: offline

HA!

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 2212

RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 4/27/2018 5:26:16 AM

Rio Bravo

Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I hope you have your replenishment carriers operating in the intended capacity and along for the ride?

If so those 48 fighter losses would be made up on the spot.

I can't see making a deep penetration where airframe attrition would make my fleet vulnerable without having replenishment carriers included in the operation.

I recently started a thread on the proper use of these carriers and provided examples of just how well they kept my combat carrier flush with airframes through the start of my Mariana's operation.

Hope you caught that thread and the significance of using the replenishment carriers in their intended role.

Hans-

As I mentioned, the vast majority of the 48 Hellcats lost were not carrier based Hellcats, but rather were Hellcats based at Pescadores.

I agree that it is a risky business to steam Allied Aircraft Carriers into El Lobo's backyard. Captain Haggard and I are well aware of the danger. However, the Allies have managed to establish a firm presence in central China, Pescadores, and on Formosa. As such, the Allies are poised to strike at the heart of Japan. Accordingly, I believe the risk is worth the benefit.

The Allies have 12 CVEs in two separate Air Combat Task Forces neither of which include CVs nor CVLs. If need be, the Allied CVs and CVLs can take replacements from the CVEs.

Best Regards,

-Terry

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 2213

RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 4/27/2018 8:04:45 PM

CaptHaggard

Posts: 191
Joined: 3/8/2016
From: Sonoma, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

adarbrauner - you can get the details in the combat report that shows as an attachment at the bottom of his post.

Why BB!

I didn't know you spoke adarbraunerese!

Your pal,

Hag

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 2214

RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 4/28/2018 2:04:33 AM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptHaggard

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

adarbrauner - you can get the details in the combat report that shows as an attachment at the bottom of his post.

Why BB!

I didn't know you spoke adarbraunerese!

Your pal,

Hag

I have many talents, most of which you would not be excited to hear about!

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to CaptHaggard)

Post #: 2215

RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 4/28/2018 3:07:10 AM

Rio Bravo

Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline

When first the Evil Emperor El Lobo does deceive

Oh what a tangled and dangerous web he does weave.

January 8, 1944

The Operation Hello El Lobo Fleet is 280 miles from its destination 40 miles due west of Pescadores.

Best Regards,

-Terry

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 2216

RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 4/29/2018 6:09:31 AM

Rio Bravo

Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline

After Action Report

for January 8, 1944

Highlight for Today

1.) The KB has been sighted.

2.) Heavy naval and air combat continue within the vicinity of Formosa.

Synopsis of Combat Action for Today

1.) The substantial amount of naval and air combat today presents a rather time consuming task to relay such combat activities by individual locations of battle. A task this scribe is far too lazy to tackle this morning. Accordingly, I will present the combined losses for today, under the following categories as follows:

Casualties

1,163 Japanese Casualties.
159 Allied casualties.

Base Hits

7 hits (Airbase).
4 hits (Airbase Supply)
42 hits (Runway).
14 hits (Port).
5 hits (Port Supply).

No Allied bases were hit.

Aircraft Losses

53 Japanese Aircraft destroyed.
6 Allied Aircraft destroyed.

26 Japanese Aircraft damaged.
16 Allied Aircraft damaged.

Ship Losses

31 Japanese Ships Sunk or Damaged:

CL Kuma: 2 shell hits.
CL Tama: 2 shell hits.
CL Kiso: 4 shell hits; on fire.
DD Inazuma: 1 shell hit.
DD Kawazaki: 1 shell hit.
DD Kosugiri: 2 shell hits; heavy fires.
E Kamo: 7 shell hits; heavy fires; heavy damage.
E Chidori: 8 shell hits, sunk.
E Manazuru: 7 shell hits; sunk.
E Scishu: 22 shell hits; sunk.
E W-14: 13 shell hits; sunk.
E W-27: 15 shell hits; sunk.
E W-29: 15 shell hits; sunk.
PB Nanpo Maru: 9 shell hits; heavy fires.
PB Taiko Maru: 7 shell hits; heavy fires; heavy damage.
PB Bunzan Maru: 7 shell hits; heavy fires; heavy damage.
PB Toyokuni Maru: 7 shell hits; heavy fires; heavy damage.
PB Rokko Maru #2: 7 shell hits; heavy fires; heavy damage.
PB Daibu Maru: 6 shell hits; heavy fires; heavy damage.
PB Shinkyo MAru: 33 shell hits; sunk.
SC CH 15: 9 shell hits; sunk.
SC CH 47: 9 shell hits; sunk.
SC CH 50: 21 shell hits; sunk.
SC CH 52: 2 shell hits; sunk.
SC CHa-1: 5 shell hits; sunk.
SC CHa-36: 1 shell hit; sunk.
SC CHa-44: 1 shell hit; sunk.
SC CHa-67: 2 shell hits; sunk.
SC CHa-70: 1 shell hit; sunk.
SC CHa-71: 4 shell hits; sunk.
xAP Huzi Maru: 1 torpedo hit; on fire; heavy damage.

20 Allied Ships Sunk or Damaged:

SS Tunny: 1 hit.
SS Skate: 3 hits.
SS Picuda: 3 hits.
SS Sealion: 8 hits.
DD Clark: 1 shell hit.
DD Harding: 1 shell hit.
DD Anderson: 1 shell hit.
DD Maury: 1 shell hit.
DD Sampson: 2 shell hits.
DD Monssen: 3 shell hits.
DD Satterlee: 1 shell hit; on fire.
DD Duncan: 2 shell hits; on fire.
DD Grayson: 7 shell hits; on fire.
DD Warrington: 1 bomb hit; on fire.DD Porter: 1 shell hit; 2 bomb hits; heavy fires; heavy damage.
DD Balch: 2 shell hits; 1 bomb hit; heavy fires; heavy damage.
DD Meredith: 4 shell hits; heavy fires; heavy damage.
DD Meade: 4 shell hits; heavy fires; heavy damage.
DD Conygham: 5 shell hits; heavy fires; heavy damage.
DD Porter: 1 shell hit; 2 bomb hits; heavy fires; heavy damage.
DD McCall: 1 bomb hit; 1 torpedo hit; heavy fires; sunk.

End Note

1.) The Operation Hello El Lobo Fleet should reach its destination tomorrow; 40 miles west of Pescadores.

2.) The Allies have won the footrace to reinforce Formosa with troops, aircraft, fuel, and supply.

3.) Short of a Japanese miracle, the Allies will hold Kagi and Takao on Formosa.

Attached below as a link is the entire Combat Report for January 8, 1944.

Best Regards,

-Terry

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to Rio Bravo)

Post #: 2217

RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 4/29/2018 6:16:41 AM

Rio Bravo

Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline

KB Sighted at Amami Oshima

January 9, 1944

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Rio Bravo -- 4/29/2018 6:17:18 AM >

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to Rio Bravo)

Post #: 2218

RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 4/29/2018 1:19:40 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

The number of aircraft in those TFs belies the sighting of so many carriers. I am sure Japan does not have 14 CVs + all those CVLs and CVEs. You need to increase the D/L on the hex.

That last TF on the list looks like a Fast Transport TF. I think the CS ships can both operate float planes (for ASW and fighter cover) and carry some troops and supply.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Rio Bravo)

Post #: 2219

RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 4/29/2018 4:24:16 PM

Rio Bravo

Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

The number of aircraft in those TFs belies the sighting of so many carriers. I am sure Japan does not have 14 CVs + all those CVLs and CVEs. You need to increase the D/L on the hex.

That last TF on the list looks like a Fast Transport TF. I think the CS ships can both operate float planes (for ASW and fighter cover) and carry some troops and supply.

BBfanboy-

I was hoping El Lobo did not have that many carriers.

At this time, with the fight being on and around Formosa, I do not want to divert any more Allied Search Aircraft to Amami Oshima.

At this time, I have pretty fair D/L 360 degrees around Formosa and do not want to disrupt that intelligence. Besides, whatever El Lobo's Carrier Force is, is what it is. *laughing*

Captain Haggard and I have dispersed approximately 60 destroyers to seek and destroy enemy ships in the area and to draw El Lobo's Naval Attack Bombers away from the Allied Carriers and transports.

Too many things one would like to do and always not enough assets to do everything.

Just prior to the Allies heading back to Guam, if his carriers are still spotted, I will increase the D/L wherever the enemy carriers are spotted.

Best Regards,

-Terry

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 2220

Page: << < prev 71 72 73 [74] 75 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J)