RE: KB engages in vicious air battles

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: KB engages in vicious air battles

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: KB engages in vicious air battles

Page: << < prev 42 43 [44] 45 46 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: KB engages in vicious air battles - 10/28/2005 11:31:38 AM

Martti

Posts: 237
Joined: 4/2/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

2. I wanted my surface combat tfs to pick up combat troops from Buin but I wasn't allowed to give this
order to the tfs after changing them into fast transport tfs. I have to return to port
first. *sulk*

I believe you can change them by creating a new fast transport tf and transfering all ships from surface combat tf to this group. You don't have to be in port to do this.

quote:

Another strange thing: When I ordered the KB to move to the hex just north of Rabaul the plotted course
took it around Emirau island - a journey of 11 hexes!-( When the same course is plotted with one of my
surface combat tfs the course is plotted through the Kavieng hex - a distance of only 4 hexes. This caused
me further headaches.

Carriers are supposed to avoid coastal hexes. I think it is possible to force them to take a shorter route by ordering them to move to a coastal hex.

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1291

RE: KB engages in vicious air battles - 10/28/2005 1:27:37 PM

String

Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline

I've had a lot of trouble with the carrier tf route plotting in the past. Especially vs andymac in SRA in early 43. Atleast two of his BB's + numerous other ships escaped from KB because I had to take two days to take a trip throught he islands west of timor because I had to send them first into the islands and then move them out next day, otherwise the TF would have taken the long route east of Timor.

But the distance I had to move was just 7 hexes

(in reply to Martti)

Post #: 1292

RE: KB engages in vicious air battles - 10/28/2005 4:16:54 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

2. I wanted my surface combat tfs to pick up combat troops from Buin but I wasn't allowed to give this
order to the tfs after changing them into fast transport tfs. I have to return to port
first. *sulk*

I believe you can change them by creating a new fast transport tf and transfering all ships from surface combat tf to this group. You don't have to be in port to do this.

You can create a FT TF without problem, but i think PzB/John is right when he says you have to be in a port/base in order to give them commands to "pickup" a unit. The only way to get around this is hazardous - form a SC TF, sail them to the unit under do not retire, and then once they are in the correct hex, you can create a FT TF and THEN load the troops and leave. If there are any enemy a/c about (or any enemy SC TFs) this can be fatal.

(in reply to Martti)

Post #: 1293

RE: KB engages in vicious air battles - 10/28/2005 7:27:08 PM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

Honda, there are almost 100 Jack fighter ac in the pools but the first Daitai doesn't arrive until
late 1943. Not sure why... The A6M2 is becoming obsolete, the A6M5 isn't a great improvement
but it will have to do.

I could move my carriers into Kavieng, but then it would be impossible to pinpoint the next destination
hex until the next day. The fast transport TFs have to be assigned pick up orders in port. Bah

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/12/43

Air Combat

Another large raid against Rabaul fails to destroy the 140 or so now damaged
ac that appeared on the fields after I accepted replacements. Phew... Transports
immediately crate the ac and head for Truk.

The Betty raids you see today are the last ones in a while. I'm standing the naval
air groups down. They will be sent to China to receive replacements and extensive
traininig. A reserve will be kept at Truk.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Rabaul , at 61,88

Japanese aircraft
A6M3 Zero x 15
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 6

Allied aircraft
F-5A Lightning x 5
B-17E Fortress x 48
B-24D Liberator x 30

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3 Zero: 4 destroyed, 3 damaged
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 5 destroyed, 21 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 3 destroyed, 10 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
65 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 39
Port hits 11
Port supply hits 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Dobodura at 55,91

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 17
G4M1 Betty x 3

Allied aircraft
Hurricane II x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Hurricane II: 2 destroyed

Allied Ships
AK Samuel F. Miller, Torpedo hits 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Torokina at 63,92

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 9
G4M1 Betty x 26

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 38

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 3 destroyed
G4M1 Betty: 10 destroyed, 6 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1 Corsair: 3 damaged

Allied Ships - too bad we didn't nail this one...
CA Houston
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Arawe at 57,89

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 19
G4M1 Betty x 3

Allied aircraft
Kittyhawk I x 7
P-38G Lightning x 23

Japanese aircraft losses - the A6M2 is performing very poorly now, even with crack pilots
A6M2 Zero: 11 destroyed
G4M1 Betty: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Kittyhawk I: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged
P-38G Lightning: 4 damaged

Allied Ships
APD Gregory, Torpedo hits 1, on fire

Aircraft Attacking:
2 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Situation Map: Solomons and New Guinea

As you can see from the sit map Sag Sag was auto occupied by the US today. It's now important
to fight an elastic defense. Units have to be 'plugged in' to delay and halt the enemy. When the situation
becomes untenable we will evacuate and start over again. Soon Ken will have to invade some of the bases
that have been built up and have 9 forts.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 1294

RE: KB engages in vicious air battles - 10/29/2005 2:44:27 AM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

Here is a little update on one of my favourite Jap destroyer classes while I wait for Ken's next turn!

The Akizuki class

The Fuyutsuki

I've already received 5 of the 12 ships in this class and they all received an upgrade on June 1st.
They got 2 sets of radar, 8 hight velocity dual purpose 3.9" guns and 4 torpedo tupes. The AA complement
is excellent and I value these ships greatly. I am hesitant to use them in a surface combat role, so they are mostly assigned as carrier escorts.

Some technical data followed by a description - all taken from the Combined Fleet site.

Displacement: 2,700 tons
Dimensions: 440 (length) by 38 (beam) by 13.5 (draught) feet
Machinery: 2-shaft geared turbines: 52,000 SHP; 33 knots
Radius: 8,300 miles at 18 knots
Armament: 8 x 3.9"/65 cal. DP guns (4 x 2); 4 x 25 mm. AA guns (2 x 2); 4 x 24" torpedo tubes (1 x 4); 6 depth charge throwers; 72 depth charges
Complement: 263
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The largest, most handsome, and, in the Japanese estimation, most successful destroyers in the Imperial fleet were those of the AKIZUKI class. Known as the "Type B," these ships were designed primarily as antiaircraft escorts for the carrier force. As originally conceived, they would not even have carried torpedoes, but a later desire to add an offensive capability saw the inclusion in the design of a quadruple 24" torpedo mount amidships.

The main features distinguishing this class from other Japanese destroyers were their size and innovative armament. Some 50 feet longer and 700 tons heavier than the preceding KAGEROs and YUGUMOs, the AKIZUKIs were able to carry a fourth main-battery turret without suffering any topweight problems as a result. These turrets were large, fully-enclosed and power-operated, and each mounted twin 3.9" high-velocity guns. Though designed as AA weapons, their high rate of fire and range of 20,000 yards made them at least the equal of their American 5" counterparts. From 1943 on each destroyer was also equipped with fifteen to fifty-one 25 mm. machine guns, the number increasing as the war progressed, and a full array of Types 21 and 22 radars.

The ships of the AKIZUKI class were built concurrently with those of the YUGUMO class, with the first six ordered under the 1939 Program and another ten, known as the SHIMOTSUKI group, under the 1941 Program. Of the latter, four were never built, MICHIZUKI being broken up on the stocks in March 1945 to make way for suicide craft, while HAZUKI, KIYOTSUKI and OZUKI were all cancelled. A large number of succeeding vessels, hull numbers 777-785 of the 1942 Program and 5061-5083 of the Modified 1942 Program, proved nothing more than expressions of wishful thinking. (HEY, I would like to finish those ships....:p)

Twelve AKIZUKIs were actually built, most of them serving in the 41st and 61st Destroyer Divisions. Six survived the war, but four of those, YOIZUKI, HARUZUKI, HANAZUKI and NATSUZUKI, were completed too late to see action outside of Japanese home waters. Though favorite targets of U.S. submarines, only one ship of the class was actually sunk by one. Two were lost to air attack and three in surface actions -- an interesting breakdown considering their original design as antiaircraft escorts.

Their swept-back lines and large single funnel made the AKIZUKIs very similar in appearance to light cruiser YUBARI, and in fact U.S. forces would consistently misidentify these ships as cruisers. And that appreciation was not so wide of the mark, considering their frequent employment in place of cruisers as squadron flagships. Their bridges were actually a bit too cramped for the addition of an admiral and his staff, and their turn of speed inferior to that of most of their contemporaries. But the AKIZUKIs continued as favorites in the role of destroyer-leader, and three were lost while so employed.

All in all, the AKIZUKI class represented an excellent, versatile design, and the vessels turned in solid performances. Lead-ship AKIZUKI herself compiled the most impressive record, fighting from Guadalcanal to Leyte Gulf with but one significant break in service due to damage. And TERUZUKI surely dealt her enemies some terrible blows one bloody night in Ironbottom Sound. But the most notable action of any of the class was HATSUZUKI's last fight off Cape Engano, an exhibition of such tenacity and selflessness as to rank with that of the American destroyers off Samar.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by PzB -- 10/29/2005 2:46:59 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1295

Allied setback at Sag Sag - 10/29/2005 4:48:27 AM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

As you remember I ordered the KB to move to the north of Rabaul 2 days ago.
I wanted to cover my transports at Rabaul and to take a snap shot at the enemy
ships at Arawe.

At first Arawe was shrouded in clouds but Ken had sent a fast transport group to
Sag Sag! 1 cl, 1 dd and 2 apds were torpedoed and left sinking..together with their
load

Must admit that I was a bit dissappointed though - 3 carrier divisions under Nagumo,
Yamaguichi and Yamada only managed to send of a single strike even though another
transport group was sighted at Arawe (that was 'open for business' during the afternoon
pulse!).

I've ordered one carrier group under Yamada to return to port with the slow carriers
Hiyo and Junyo. A surface combat group has been formed and tomorrow we will try to
cause more problems for the Allies!

Anyway, it was a rather good day for Japan...if you disregard a very unfortunate episode
that is described in detail later in this post

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/13/43

Surface Combat

Ken must have spotted my transports at Rabaul - he sent a surface group
from Torokina after them...and just mist the bus! All he got for his troubles
was mine damage and a barge for desert

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 1137 encounters mine field at Rabaul (61,88)

Allied Ships
CL Mobile, Mine hits 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Rabaul at 61,88

Japanese Ships
AG AG-5188, Shell hits 16, and is sunk

Allied Ships
BB Indiana
CA Northampton
CL Mobile
DD Reid
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

The transports that just left Rabaul with my replenished air groups somehow managed
to unload again before they left

I cursed all the curses I know when Ken's bombers
came back and destroyed anoter 99 ac on the ground. This is the most frustrating thing I've ever been
exposed to in this game. Matrix never managed to get those ship loading routines up to date.

So I've crawled to the cross and asked Ken for permission to pick up my lost air flotilla without
him interfering. Dunno if he'll let me, but he has already killed them all twice and it is the lousy
game routine's fault that they're still trapped there... I'm NEVER going to let something like this
happened again.

Day Air attack on Rabaul , at 61,88

Japanese aircraft
A6M3 Zero x 13
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 5

Allied aircraft
B-25J Mitchell x 54

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3 Zero: 1 destroyed, 5 damaged
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 12 destroyed
A6M2 Zero: 7 destroyed
L2D2 Tabby: 5 destroyed
Ki-46-III Dinah: 3 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-25J Mitchell: 3 destroyed, 22 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
79 casualties reported
Guns lost 3

Airbase hits 5
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 73
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Rabaul , at 61,88

Japanese aircraft
A6M3 Zero x 6
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 2

Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 43
B-25J Mitchell x 38

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3 Zero: 11 destroyed
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 10 destroyed
L2D2 Tabby: 5 destroyed
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed
Ki-46-III Dinah: 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-38G Lightning: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged
B-25J Mitchell: 8 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
28 casualties reported

Airbase hits 3
Runway hits 60
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Rabaul , at 61,88

Japanese aircraft
A6M3 Zero x 2

Allied aircraft
F-5A Lightning x 4
B-17E Fortress x 29
B-24D Liberator x 15

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 5 destroyed
A6M2 Zero: 5 destroyed
L2D2 Tabby: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 3 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
56 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 26
Port hits 7
Port fuel hits 1
Port supply hits 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I ordered a crack Tojo Sentai to sweep Arawe from Gasmata! It was a great
success

16 enemy ac were shot down for the cost of 5 Tojos. Tojo's are great
against P-38s, Wildcats and Warhawks. They die when they come up against Corsairs though.

Day Air attack on Arawe , at 57,89

Japanese aircraft
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 35

Allied aircraft
Kittyhawk I x 6
P-38G Lightning x 19

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 5 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Kittyhawk I: 5 destroyed
P-38G Lightning: 11 destroyed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The only carrier raid that took of today hit Ken's fast transport groups hard!
Unfortunately 60% of the attack ac continued to attack the Perth after she had
sunk and thus the two destroyers got away much lighter than they should have.
Another example of lousy game routines I'm afraid. Had my fair share of them
and then some today....

Day Air attack on TF, near Sag Sag at 57,88

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 50
A6M3 Zero x 11
A6M5 Zeke x 24
D3A Val x 19
B5N Kate x 69
B6N Jill x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N Kate: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged

Allied Ships
CL Perth, Torpedo hits 6, on fire, heavy damage *sinks*
DD Norman, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Ralph Talbot

The casualties came from parts of the 7th Australian Div.

Allied ground losses:
119 casualties reported
Guns lost 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Sag Sag at 57,88

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 2 damaged

Allied Ships
DD Ralph Talbot

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These Kates were based at Gasmata and got in a few good hits!

Day Air attack on TF, near Sag Sag at 57,88

Japanese aircraft
B5N Kate x 18

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N Kate: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged

Allied Ships
APD Kilty, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage *sinks*
APD Dent, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage *sinks*

Allied ground losses:
73 casualties reported
Guns lost 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground Combat

I ordered parts of the 2nd Para Regiment to recapture Sag Sag - and thanks
to the KB they met not resistance. You didn't get away with this one Ken

Ground combat at Sag Sag

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 132 troops, 1 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 0 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles

Japanese assault odds: 8 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Sag Sag base !!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Payback at Sag Sag

Here is screenie that's good for morale: the demise of the HMAS Perth!

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1296

RE: Allied setback at Sag Sag - 10/29/2005 5:20:01 AM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

I thought reinforcement week was scheduled for tomorrow..but somehow all the Army reinforcements
arrived today. So I wasn't able to provide production screenies before and after this event. I'm attaching one
anyway!

All the units arrived at full strength, so no shortage of arms or manpower!

Here is a list over the units that arrived and their destinations:
(One division has been released from China Command)

Divisions

6th Division - Tinian
30th Division - Guam
43rd Division - Saipan
46th Division - Pagan

I had to search all over the map to find several of these units! One arrived at Inchon, another one at Kagoshima
and a third just outside Hiroshima/Kobe.

Brigades/Regiments/Guard units

1st Amphibious Brigade (crack 70 exp unit) - Palau
9th Mixed Independent Regiment - Toyohara
11th Mixed Independent Regiment - Shikka
12th Mixed Independent Regiment - Paramushiro
51st Mixed Brigade - Ulithi
90th Naval Guard Unit - Marcus Island

As you can see I have assigned 3 of the regiments to Shakalin and the northern approaches to Japan. This area has
caused me some concern and now I'm finally able to relax a bit more. Bad weather and strong coastal defences and forts
will make it very difficult to land in this area.

The 17th Army HQ also arrived and has been dispatche to Palau.

There also arrived a Guards Division and a Guards Brigade attached to Home Defense in Japan
as well as another division in China.

In one month another 5 South Seas Detachements will arrive. These have been ear marked for:
Iwo Jima
Bonin Island
Yap
DEI
New Guinea

It is quite intentional that I 'starve' the front for replacement units. It's important to build a very strong main perimeter.
If this is breached the war will be all but lost... Quite a few reinforcements will arrive over the next 6-12 months and I think
it should be possible to build up a powerful reserve and counter attack force.

The units that are most suitable for operations in the Solomons, New Guinea and the Solomons are the Special Navy Landing Force (SNLF)
units and lNaval Guard Units as these are easy to airlift of move quickly by fast transport. Several of these were initially sent to the Marianas
but have now been released for service at the front.

4 tank regiments have also been ordered to prepare for the 4 key bases in the Marianas will soon be defended by:
Army and Air HQ (Saipan, Tinian and Guam)
1 elite Army Division, 1 elite Army Regiment, 1 tank regiment (Saipan, Tinian and Guam)
1 Army Division, 1 tank regiment (Pagan)

In addition strong coastal defense units are in place as well as 250 AV support, 50k supplies.
Ulithi, Yap and Palau will be defended by at least a division worth of troops each + support units.

In India I have dispatched one division from Karachi to Bangalore. It will make up the strategic reserve that
can be quickly moved to Madras, Trivandrum, Panaji or Bombay in case of an enemy invasion.

Industry and troop pools June 1943

As you can see the reserve of ac engines has increased but the most important improvement is the
increased heavy industry (HI) pool. This has come at the expense of closing down some merchant shipyards and other production plants.
The acceleration of all the escort carriers has also helped reduce the size of the merchant shipyard points.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1297

RE: Allied setback at Sag Sag - 10/29/2005 6:43:21 AM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

A rather quiet turn... Ken has agreed to let me pick up my stranded squadrons.
He wasn't happy about the fast transport groups that were whacked last turn - they were supposed
to move in - unload - and move out again during the night but stayed at Sag Sag and was killed.

More problems today:

The fighter bomber unit and 2 Betty Daitais that were picked up from Rabaul with the first
cargo ships a few days ago had neither ac nor pilots after unloading at Truk

In Tokyo the light carriers Chitose and Chioyda arrived after being converted from seaplane
carriers. They arrived with 1x21 A6M5 Zeke and 1x9 Jill air groups - the only problem is that
all four groups arrived without pilots!! I had to assign green ones from the pools myself.

R.Adm Tanaka has suddenly dissappeared - he's not in command of a TF and he's not
available for use. Great!

Nothing seems to be working anymore!

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/14/43

Surface Combat

The raiders sent against Buna only found some barges and...PT boats!
A destroyer was hit and it's uncertain whether she'll make it back home.
50 sys, 70 flood and 10 fires..that's a lot of damage from 1 torpedo.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Buna at 55,90

Japanese Ships
CA Myoko
CA Haguro
CL Oyodo
DD Kazegumo
DD Kiyonami
DD Hatsukaze
DD Yukikaze
DD Amatsukaze

Allied Ships
LCVP 542P, Shell hits 2, and is sunk
LCVP 592G
LCVP 592H, Shell hits 2, and is sunk
LCVP 592J
LCVP 592K
LCVP 592P, Shell hits 5, and is sunk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Buna at 55,90

Japanese Ships
CA Myoko
CA Haguro
CL Oyodo
DD Kazegumo, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Kiyonami
DD Hatsukaze
DD Yukikaze
DD Amatsukaze

Allied Ships
PT PT-111
PT PT-112
PT PT-113, Shell hits 9, and is sunk
PT PT-114
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Invasions

Ken doesn't waste any time and invades Buin using barges! Almost 4000 troops
land the first day. These landings must have disrupted the ordered FT mission into
Shortland cause the unit had lost its pick up order...argh.

TF 1082 encounters mine field at Buin (64,92)

TF 1082 troops unloading over beach at Buin, 64,92

Allied Ships
MSW Pursuit

Coastal Guns at Buin, 64,92, firing at TF 1082
Allied Ships
MSW Pursuit
LCM 532C

Allied ground losses:
40 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 1129 encounters mine field at Buin (64,92)

TF 1129 troops unloading over beach at Buin, 64,92

Allied Ships
LCT LCT-370, Mine hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Allied ground losses:
29 casualties reported
Guns lost 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Guns at Buin, 64,92, firing at TF 1129
106 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
LCT LCT-370, Shell hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
LCT LCT-330
LCT LCT-160, Shell hits 4
LCT LCT-145, Shell hits 1
LCT LCT-141
LCT LCT-137, Shell hits 4
LCT LCT-136, Shell hits 3

Allied ground losses:
697 casualties reported
Guns lost 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

Day Air attack on TF, near Rabaul at 61,88

Japanese aircraft
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 7

Allied aircraft
P-40N Warhawk x 15

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
P-40N Warhawk: 2 destroyed

Japanese Ships
AG AG-121, Shell hits 8
AG AG-115, Shell hits 4
AG AG-104, Shell hits 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground Combat

There are 3 fort levels at Buin..I hope Ken has to fight long and hard for it.

Ground combat at Buin

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 6497 troops, 7 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 3856 troops, 51 guns, 0 vehicles

Japanese ground losses:
10 casualties reported
Guns lost 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Chitose

Not a great ship in any way...I loaded a crack A6M2 Zero Daitai aboard her. Her sister
got a 9 Zeros and will get some Vals and Kates when she arrive at Truk.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1298

RE: Allied setback at Sag Sag - 10/30/2005 6:32:08 PM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

Another couple days of bloody fighting! It seems close to impossible to stop the enemy
advance in the Solomons and on New Britain. Delay, delay, delay...but I have to reduce Jap
casualties. Difficult.

Ken's good grace allowed me to successfully evacuate the 8 air groups that were caught on the
ground at Rabaul due to various unhaps and faulty cargo loading routines.

I do have a couple of plans for the next few days - they will be covered as they unfold as there
is so much else to cover.

14 more days and A6M5 production will begin!

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/15/43

Invasions

More troops into Buin - 2 regiments of the Americal division are engaged
here now.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 1084 encounters mine field at Buin (64,92)

TF 1084 troops unloading over beach at Buin, 64,92

Allied Ships
DD Grayson

Coastal Guns at Buin, 64,92, firing at TF 1084

Allied ground losses:
118 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

The air attack against the perimeter bases are vicious...

Day Air attack on 23rd Engineer Regiment, at 64,92

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 32
P-40N Warhawk x 12
B-25J Mitchell x 36

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
118 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A bombardment TF destined for Darwin is protected by local CAP at Lautern.
Ken doesn't get any hits and his bombers are hit hard.

Day Air attack on TF, near Lautem at 33,78

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 6
A6M3 Zero x 15
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 4

Allied aircraft
Hudson I x 9
P-40N Warhawk x 25
B-17E Fortress x 11

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged
A6M3 Zero: 3 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Hudson I: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged
P-40N Warhawk: 7 destroyed, 3 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 8 damaged

Japanese Ships
CA Kinugasa
DD Satsuki
CA Kako
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Lautem at 33,78

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 3
A6M3 Zero x 13
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 6

Allied aircraft
Hudson I x 9
Beaufighter Mk 21 x 4
P-40N Warhawk x 33
B-17E Fortress x 5

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed
A6M3 Zero: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged
Ki-61 KAIc Tony: 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Beaufighter Mk 21: 1 damaged
P-40N Warhawk: 6 destroyed, 3 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
CL Jintsu
DD Wakaba
CA Aoba
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground Combat

A shock attack is perhaps a bit rash Ken? I do have some good units at Buin.
It's important to wear down the US assault units..will take time to rebuild them.

Ground combat at Buin

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 5952 troops, 3 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 3828 troops, 47 guns, 0 vehicles

Japanese ground losses:
7 casualties reported
Guns lost 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Buin

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 3782 troops, 45 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 8538 troops, 1 guns, 0 vehicles

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

Allied ground losses:
133 casualties reported
Guns lost 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/16/43

Invasions

I decided to occupy a small base called Kiamana on the west coast of northern Guinea.
It's a potential base and I don't like surprises...

TF 45 troops unloading over beach at Kiamana, 43,79
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More troops for Buin...

TF 1084 encounters mine field at Buin (64,92)

TF 1084 troops unloading over beach at Buin, 64,92

Allied ground losses:
210 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sub/ASW Attacks

The bombardment group heading for Darwin is intercepted by a sub. No casualties!

Sub attack at 35,82

Japanese Ships
DD Oshio
DD Satsuki
DD Yayoi
DD Ikazuchi
DD Wakaba
DD Nenohi
DD Yudachi
DD Shigure
DD Hayashio
DD Onami
CA Kinugasa

Allied Ships
SS Finback
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 61,85

Japanese Ships
AK Havana Maru
PG Chitose Maru
PG Tamo Maru #7
PC Hachijo

Allied Ships
SS Stingray
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bombardments

2 enemy transport tfs evade the bombardment group which hits Darwin pretty good.
How will Ken react to this? Next time I might just add 2 fast battleships to such a mission!

Naval bombardment of Darwin, at 36,84

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
Spitfire Vb: 1 destroyed
Sunderland: 1 destroyed
Hudson I: 1 destroyed
Boomerang II: 2 destroyed
P-40N Warhawk: 2 destroyed
Beaufighter Mk 21: 1 destroyed
B-17E Fortress: 1 destroyed

Japanese Ships
CL Tama
CL Jintsu
CA Kako
CA Kinugasa
CA Aoba

Allied ground losses:
263 casualties reported
Guns lost 10
Vehicles lost 1

Airbase hits 9
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately Ken's bombardment attack against Gasmata is even more effective
and I have forgot to move a Tojo group and 2 small Kate Daitai's out. They're all
demolished on the ground

One Kate group is withdrawn, I will try to get the
other 2 groups out by other means but it may be difficult.

Naval bombardment of Gasmata, at 59,90

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N Kate: 5 destroyed
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 8 destroyed

Allied Ships
DD Aylwin
CA Houston
DD Balch
DD Reid
CA Northampton
BB Indiana

Japanese ground losses: *ouch*
689 casualties reported
Guns lost 8

Airbase hits 15
Airbase supply hits 15
Runway hits 82
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

Heavy air raids then demolish Gasmata from the air..what the bombardment group
didn't kill these raids finish of. Ken's next invasion objective?

Day Air attack on Gasmata , at 59,90

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 50
B-25J Mitchell x 51
B-24D Liberator x 41

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N Kate: 4 destroyed
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 11 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-25J Mitchell: 1 damaged

Airbase hits 5
Airbase supply hits 4
Runway hits 71
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Gasmata , at 59,90

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft
Beaufighter Mk 21 x 87
P-40N Warhawk x 12
A-20G Havoc x 15
B-24D Liberator x 47

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N Kate: 2 destroyed

Japanese ground losses:
24 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 23rd Engineer Regiment, at 64,92

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 37
P-40N Warhawk x 15
B-25J Mitchell x 36

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
91 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Kure 5th SNLF, at 55,87

Allied aircraft
Beaufighter Mk 21 x 28

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
91 casualties reported
Guns lost 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet another attempt to hit my bombardment group...no go this time either!

Day Air attack on TF, near Lautem at 33,78

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 3
A6M3 Zero x 13
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 4

Allied aircraft
Hudson I x 4
P-40N Warhawk x 12
B-17E Fortress x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3 Zero: 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Hudson I: 2 destroyed
P-40N Warhawk: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
CL Tama
CA Kinugasa
CL Jintsu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground Combat

Ground combat at Kiamana

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 244 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 0 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles

Japanese assault odds: 4 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Kiamana base !!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Buin

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 3620 troops, 42 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 8372 troops, 1 guns, 0 vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_____________________________

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

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1299

RE: Allied setback at Sag Sag - 10/30/2005 11:54:48 PM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

Managed to get the stranded air units out of Gasmata today: One Kate unit
was withdrawn, the other one managed to transfer out to a carrier. When this
happends ALL damaged ac follows.

A nother Tojo Sentai was transferred to Gasmata and withdrawn: the stranded
unit had 8 operational ac and could be immediately transferred back to Truk.
So while 2 units won't be back for another 60 days, we avoided their total loss.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/17/43

Bombardments

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Buin, at 64,92

Allied Ships
DD Evertsen
DD Warramunga
DD Anderson
DD Hughes
CL Denver
CL Columbia
CA San Francisco
BB Oklahoma

Japanese ground losses:
131 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Airbase hits 3
Runway hits 14
Port hits 8
Port supply hits 15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Invasions

A little retribution in the form of a mine...

TF 1084 encounters mine field at Buin (64,92)

TF 1084 troops unloading over beach at Buin, 64,92

Allied Ships
DD Caldwell, Mine hits 1, on fire

Allied ground losses:
12 casualties reported

Allied ground losses:
118 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

Day Air attack on Rabaul , at 61,88

Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 14
B-25J Mitchell x 42

Allied aircraft losses
B-25J Mitchell: 3 destroyed, 15 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
66 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 71
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Rabaul , at 61,88

Japanese aircraft
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 5

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 44

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-61 KAIc Tony: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 3 destroyed, 14 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
85 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

Port hits 7
Port supply hits 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I considered to evacuate 2 air units by cargo ships if they survived. This
became unnecessary since we fixed it in a different way.

Day Air attack on TF, near Gasmata at 59,90

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 12
SBD Dauntless x 11
Avenger I x 12
P-40E Warhawk x 28
P-38G Lightning x 27

Allied aircraft losses
SBD Dauntless: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
AK Matue Maru, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
AK Malta Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We continue to hit Allied shipping...

Day Air attack on TF, near Arawe at 57,89

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 16
A6M3 Zero x 5
G4M1 Betty x 21
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 25

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 9
Kittyhawk I x 7
P-38G Lightning x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3 Zero: 3 destroyed
G4M1 Betty: 2 destroyed, 11 damaged
Ki-43-IIa Oscar: 7 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1 Corsair: 1 destroyed
Kittyhawk I: 6 destroyed
P-38G Lightning: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied Ships
DD Henley, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
APD Gilmer
APD Brooks
APD McKean
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_____________________________

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

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1300

RE: Allied setback at Sag Sag - 10/31/2005 5:11:06 PM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

Here are 2 good advice about how to evacuate stranded air groups (with or without ac).

1. If it is a Sentai (Navy) unit and it got damaged ac: transfer it to a carrier. All damaged ac
immediately follow suit.
2. If the air group doesn't have any ac: transfer in a small unit with the same ac tye and immediately
withdraw it. This gives your stranded group the ac it needs to immediately transfer out.

As I told Ken, I find the routines that handles the evacuation of stranded pilots/air groups for hopeless.
So any mean is a just one..

I'm using my light surface units to ferry reinforcements to most of the bases between Lae and Kavieng.
Engineers, AA, garrisons and supplies are moved in quickly to make it difficult to penetrate this 'barrier'.

I've airlifted a good portion of an engineer regiment from Shortland - it should be possible to save a fair
amount of troops before the base falls. There is no use fighting to the bitter end: when time is up it's time
to head home and regroup for the next battle.

It is really cheap to release tank regiments from China: 146 pp

So more are on their way to the Pacific.
Not very funny to fight mano el tanko on a small atoll...

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/18/43

Surface Combat

An aggrssive little PT unit reacted against a barge at Talasea from Arawe....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Talasea at 59,88

Japanese Ships
AG AG-101, Shell hits 31, and is sunk

Allied Ships
PT PT-168
PT PT-169
PT PT-170
PT PT-173
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Invasions

TF 1061 encounters mine field at Buin (64,92)

TF 1061 troops unloading over beach at Buin, 64,92

Allied ground losses:
200 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 1084 encounters mine field at Buin (64,92)

TF 1084 troops unloading over beach at Buin, 64,92

Allied ground losses:
36 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

It is almost impossible to keep a CAP over Kavieng because it 'melts' away
over Rabaul. Silly, silly...

Day Air attack on Rabaul , at 61,88

Japanese aircraft
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 7

Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 37
B-25J Mitchell x 39

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-61 KAIc Tony: 10 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-38G Lightning: 1 destroyed
B-25J Mitchell: 1 destroyed, 4 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
35 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Airbase hits 8
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 60
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_____________________________

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

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1301

RE: Allied setback at Sag Sag - 10/31/2005 9:54:50 PM

Rob Brennan UK

Posts: 3685
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: London UK
Status: offline

Doesn't changing the range down to say '0' mean that they won't fly CAP over bases further away? it's the logical response but game mechanics have a tendency to flaunt the obvious and/or logical.

Goos luck as ever

_____________________________

sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1302

RE: Allied setback at Sag Sag - 10/31/2005 10:08:34 PM

Speedysteve

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

Hi Rob/John,

No I think with CAP it will always have a chance of flying CAP upto 2 hexes away whatever..........

Regards,

Steven

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Rob Brennan UK)

Post #: 1303

RE: Allied setback at Sag Sag - 10/31/2005 11:51:35 PM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

Over the last week I've had a full size Tony Daitai (36) ac at CAP over Kavieng - 90% CAP, range set to 0. After only a short week the
Daitai has been reduced in size to 20 ac. All of the 16 ac that were lost went down over Rabaul. 11 alone in yesterdays large and heavily
escorted raid.

Sometimes it was advantagous to have them protect Rabaul but when Ken sent P-38 escort fighters along the losses became really bad.
The worst thing is the tactical drawback caused by the lack of controll....

So Kavieng is now without CAP! All bases that are only 1-2 hexes apart will suffer this fate if the Allied player uses the routines
to his advantage. I would really like to know if there is a way to circumvent this problem!

Thx for the input guys!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 1304

RE: Allied setback at Sag Sag - 11/1/2005 12:00:40 AM

Speedysteve

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

Hi John,

AFAIK there isn't. It's hardcoded that CAP can now potentially fly upto 2 hexes away from it's assigned hex. I take it as rough with the smooth since if you remember the old rule there was NO chance that CAP would deviate from it's assigned hex. Some complained that CAP should be a bit more flexible and here we are with the current solution.

I'm neither for it or against it. It has pros and cons as far as I see it.

Regards,

Steven

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1305

RE: Allied setback at Sag Sag - 11/1/2005 12:13:09 AM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

Too bad Steven...I think it's more positive for the Allies than Japan. The latter can't afford unintentional air losses from mid 43 and onwards.
I would say that the aggression rating of the fighter units commander should have played a role. The local base commander should also be
able to issue directives: increased CAP range for 0-1-2-3... hexes allowed. This would have fine tuned the routines.

Guess I have to adapt - as usual

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 1306

RE: Allied setback at Sag Sag - 11/1/2005 12:15:04 AM

wobbly

Posts: 1095
Joined: 10/16/2002
From: Christchurch, New Zealand
Status: offline

Can you LRCAP Kavieng from another base?

_____________________________

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 1307

RE: Allied setback at Sag Sag - 11/1/2005 12:40:04 AM

Honda

Posts: 953
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Karlovac, Croatia
Status: offline

Rabaul?

_____________________________

AAR of my game vs Raver on my clan forum in croatian language (despite the language differences, no Ravers allowed)

(in reply to wobbly)

Post #: 1308

RE: Allied setback at Sag Sag - 11/1/2005 1:06:02 AM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

Hi Al... I can - but that produces new problems:
1. The Tony is a very short legged fighter utterly unsuited for LRCAP missions
2. If I put Tojos or Zeros on long range CAP over Kavieng they would have to be based at Emirau.
3. If-when Ken bombs Emirau my CAP will go up in smoke on the ground and I would need to heavily CAP Emirau as well.

It's a loose loose situation I'm afraid!

I can nly challenge Allied air supremacy out of their escort fighters max range from now on.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Honda)

Post #: 1309

RE: Allied setback at Sag Sag - 11/1/2005 1:58:25 AM

Monter_Trismegistos

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline

LRCAPing Kavieng from Kavieng also didn't work?

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1310

RE: Allied setback at Sag Sag - 11/1/2005 2:52:56 AM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

Doesn't LR-CAP 'leak'?
Must admit that I've not tested this out myself - but I will certainly do so!

This could be the solution to the problem Monter

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)

Post #: 1311

RE: Allied setback at Sag Sag - 11/1/2005 4:33:19 AM

ragtopcars_slith

Posts: 66
Joined: 8/2/2004
Status: offline

Pzb
I beleive that if you LRCAP over your own base, you don't have the leak, but you also don't get the full amount of aircraft performing CAP... i think it would be worth it though since you are losing so many aircraft!
i cannot say what the percent is but it just doesn't fly as many.

good luck!

derek

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1312

US captures Buin - 11/1/2005 11:45:55 AM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

I know LRCAP isn't perfect Ragtopcars, but it's better than nothing - especially if it doesn't 'leak'..!-)

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/19/43

Bombardments

Poor Buin is hit again and again...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Buin, at 64,92

Allied Ships
DD Evertsen
DD Warramunga
DD Anderson
DD Hughes
CL Denver
CL Columbia
CA San Francisco
BB Oklahoma

Japanese ground losses:
145 casualties reported

Airbase hits 2
Runway hits 8
Port supply hits 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 1061 encounters mine field at Buin (64,92)

TF 1061 troops unloading over beach at Buin, 64,92

Allied Ships
DD Monssen

Allied ground losses:
109 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

Another example of 'CAP leakage' - a carrier tf 2 hexes from Rabaul 'lends' quite a few
fighters to Rabaul. The results are pretty good today, but I really don't want my highly experienced
navy pilots to oppose milk runs.

10 transport ac were lost over Shortland today as Ken long range cap'ed the base...
Got all the operational engineer units out though. Shortland is completely isolated after the fall of Buin.
The 10k troops there are mostly secondary units that have been gradually worn down.

Day Air attack on Rabaul , at 61,88

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 13

Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 36
B-25J Mitchell x 33

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
P-38G Lightning: 5 destroyed
B-25J Mitchell: 1 destroyed, 11 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
16 casualties reported

Airbase hits 4
Runway hits 29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Rabaul , at 61,88

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 26
A6M3 Zero x 12

Allied aircraft
F-5A Lightning x 3
B-24D Liberator x 43

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed, 5 damaged
A6M3 Zero: 1 destroyed, 5 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-24D Liberator: 11 destroyed, 21 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
43 casualties reported

Airbase hits 4
Runway hits 25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some experienced Oscars were put on naval attack and hit the PT boats
that are slowly making their way back home after expending all their fuel to
get to Talasea.

Day Air attack on TF at 56,87

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 11

No Japanese losses

Allied Ships
PT PT-173, Shell hits 4
PT PT-169
PT PT-170
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground Combat

The fatigued, out bombed and malaria ridden troops at Buin could not
hold but will continue to fight the invaders to the last!

Ground combat at Buin

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 8066 troops, 84 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 7314 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles

Allied assault odds: 14 to 1 (fort level 3)

Allied forces CAPTURE Buin base !!!

Japanese ground losses:
32 casualties reported

Allied ground losses:
164 casualties reported
Guns lost 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Solomons and New Guinea 19-06-1943

As you can see the Allied steamroller quietly 'consumed' Buin today. I considered to intercept the Allied ships with one or
two surface groups but decided against it. Still waiting for an opportunity to hurt the Allies.

I've marked the expected Allied expansion in the area: the game allows the Allies to advance much quicker than what happened
historically so it is important to slow them down as much as possible even though the cost is high.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to ragtopcars_slith)

Post #: 1313

RE: US captures Buin - 11/1/2005 2:01:29 PM

Speedysteve

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

Hi John,

I still believe that if you LRCAP and target a base it STILL has a chance of some leakage upto 2 hexes away......

Regards,

Steven

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1314

RE: US captures Buin - 11/1/2005 2:06:43 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

VERY rarely. Might be one or two planes straying from their target hex.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 1315

RE: US captures Buin - 11/1/2005 2:20:58 PM

Speedysteve

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

It can still happen though Mr T i've seen it.

There is no way that I know of to GUARANTEE that EVERY CAP plane will fly in 1 hex.

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 1316

RE: US captures Buin - 11/3/2005 4:13:11 AM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

Not been able to test out the theory yet guys, Ken hasn't been attacking Kavieng lately and I'm not keen on torching my plans

Only the usual air bombardments this turn! I guess Ken is preparing for his next moves and I will try to be ready for them.
Thus far I've tried to nibble away at his forces at the expense of my naval bombers and escorts. While expensive several destroyers and a light cruiser have been sunk
while a battleship was damaged. Not a single Japanese destroyer has been sunk and I think this is encouraging as the situation is far from ideal in the Solomons and New Guinea.

Since all British and most of the old US battleships have been sunk or damaged Ken will have to use his newer models for bombardments in the future. This is costly due to the counterfire
and mines that will be encountered. Hopefully Japans 12 battleships can be put to good use... The Yamato and Musashi have been repaired and only got 5-7 sys damage. Not going to risk these
ships until 'the real thing' comes down - takes way too long to fix them.

Btw does anyone know whether the Ise and Huyga can be converted to hybrid carriers - and when? Don't think this is a project I will duplicate though

800 Jap ac are currently undergoing training in China and I have to rotate out some groups with an average of 70~ exp to make room for new ones. Numbers is not the problem really: sending in
large number of ac results in really heavy casualties and only limited damage to their targets. We HAVE to catch the enemy of guard to inflict heavy damage. So we wait....
10 more days until A6M5 Zeke production can start: initial delivery will be 275 units pr month

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/20/43

Ken will have to spend some time reducing the troopers that melted into the
jungle at Buin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Buin

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 4291 troops, 53 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 6834 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles

Allied assault odds: 12 to 1

Japanese ground losses:
10 casualties reported

Allied ground losses:
51 casualties reported
Guns lost 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Historical organization of Japanese Forces, Southeast Area, July 1943

As you can see there were more forces in the Solomons/New Guinea during WWII than I've deployed.
That's because I don't consider this area to be the main defensive perimeter of the Empire and it would be folly
to waste more troops than necessary in these initial defensive battles.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 1317

RE: US captures Buin - 11/3/2005 8:08:38 AM

String

Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline

If you have either the Ise or Hyuga in Osaka after january 43 they will begin conversion and enter the ship building queue. 120 days for 100~ naval points per day, per ship. NOT worth it, unless you can soup up your rufes to corsair levels

Some experience from Koepang battles. Always send your battleships in in twos or threes. Preferrably a good new one, Yamato or Nagato class, with an old one in tow. The enemy tends to concentrate on one, rarely on two battleships and with any luck they will be of the older types. Also try to keep your Kongo class away, those will suffer, better used as a last resort stopgap measure. Have either Yamato or Musashi been in combat before? What is their night experience? DO check all your BB leaders before sending them in the battle, preferrably in port. Leader bug can do nasty things to such important ships, and iirc some older BB's have crappy leaders anyway.

I personally liked to use semi-agressive or more careful leaders on my BB's as agressive ones tend to put those VERY valuable units at too much risk. IF you can damage or sink most of the US BB's then your own Battleships will be like gold, when they get there they can damage or destroy any US landing, cruisers being no match for them. But you already know that

One more note, in 43 your destroyers will get shot up badly by american ones. I had a lot of surface actions and it was always the same.. Even if my capitals got away lightly my destroyers always were damaged, heavily even, and usually all of them. CA's held their own, as did BB's. Can't comment on CL's as I didn't use them much, and when I did they ran into a very superior force and got sunk. Anyway, japanese CL's are more like big armored DD's (the old ones), they are only a threat to enemy DD's with their 5.5" guns and the only big weapon they have is their torpedoes, and even then some of them have the old 21" types ... and the new ones with 6x6" guns are better as carrier escorts imho.

What else, some of the PG types with good guns, i think those are the newer eteroforu class? can be useful against PT's. Or perhaps those were the newer PC's i was thinking of? Anyway, check your PG's and PC's and the ones which have two bigger guns are quite useful in this role. Yes they will suffer losses, but better PG's than PT's.

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1318

RE: US captures Buin - 11/3/2005 7:40:43 PM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

Don't worry String, not going to convert them

Thx for the info though, nice to know...!

I will experiement with new surface group compositions: more heavy/light cruisers and fewer
destroyers. The light cruisers are good at suppressing enemy destroyers and Jap ca's still field
a formidable punch with their massive torpedo batteries...

Here is the list of the Japanese battleships and their day/night experience ratings:

Name Day/Night experience

Yamato 77/69
Musashi 68/74

Kongo 84/79
Kirishima 78/79
Hiei 74/81
Haruna 79/83

Nagato 82/79
Mutsu 81/71

Hyuga 72/68
Ise 81/73

Fuso 81/79
Yamashiro 81/70

The fast Kongo's all have excellent day/night exp, so does the two Nagato class ships.
A heavy surface battlegroup could consist of 1 Yamato and 1-2 Nagato class ships + 4 ca, 2 cl and 4 dds.
A fast battlegroup made up from 2-3 or even 4 Kongo class ships can move in at full speed (6/6 hexes) and out
again while smashing up enemy cruiser groups or bombarding a base. Otherwise these ships will be used as carrier escorts.

The Fuso/Yamashiro and Ise/Hyuga class ships are slower and not so formidable - mostly to be used in bombardments.

New escorts

As you can see I'm using the new high durability PCs to escort my replenishment fleet.
Endurance of 8000, excellent asw capabilities and a reasonable speed make them ideal.
Not sure they would fear well in a surface engagement though - even against PTs.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/21/43

Surface Combat

The mines at Buin claimed another victim!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 1205 encounters mine field at Buin (64,92)

Allied Ships
MSW Quail
MSW Finch
MSW Rail
MSW Turkey
MSW Oriole
DE Austin, Mine hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

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

Gasmata was hit heavily from the air today and there are many enemy surface groups
in the nearby bases. Not sure there's much that can be done to stop an enemy invasions here!

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to String)

Post #: 1319

RE: US captures Buin - 11/3/2005 8:19:44 PM

String

Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

The fast Kongo's all have excellent day/night exp, so does the two Nagato class ships.
A heavy surface battlegroup could consist of 1 Yamato and 1-2 Nagato class ships + 4 ca, 2 cl and 4 dds.
A fast battlegroup made up from 2-3 or even 4 Kongo class ships can move in at full speed (6/6 hexes) and out
again while smashing up enemy cruiser groups or bombarding a base. Otherwise these ships will be used as carrier escorts.

The Fuso/Yamashiro and Ise/Hyuga class ships are slower and not so formidable - mostly to be used in bombardments.

Hmm.. I disagree here on the oldies. Fuso/Yamashiro and Ise/Hyuga both have nice batterlies of 10x14" and have good armor. Nothing special, but good enough to stop 14" rounds from moderate distance. I'd include 1-2 of them in your heavy surface group. The Nagato class already brings the speed down to 4 hexes per phase, and getting any of them damaged, or even sunk isn't catastrophic while heavy damage to Nagatos/Yamatos would be. IMHO

Take care with the fast battleships, they have thin armor, and iirc i've seen their tower armor penetrated by allied CA's at close range during night battles.

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1320

Page: << < prev 42 43 [44] 45 46 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: KB engages in vicious air battles