RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik

RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

jwilkerson -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/26/2009 6:04:22 AM)
02-03 December 1942 Solomons Multitudinous 4EB hit Shortlands and Tass this turn. Some Beaufighters from Lunga came up and attacked the Ashigara which is covering our tanker which is unloading at Short. New Britain The aviation BF finished unloading at Gasmata (with the listening devices) note there is no port at Gasmata, but the combination of using an Amphibious TF type as well as prior placement of 30 naval support (flown in long ago by Mavis/Emily from Truk) enabled the BF to 100% unload in under two days. Fleet Our fleet will wander down to Ontong Java this turn, the Amphibs and oilers will trail behind. Since Nik seems to know we're comming and when - I would expect his carriers to be near by. We are turning on a Betty unit at Rabaul with 100% search as well as the Mavis and Emily and about 60% of the Jakes (10 hex range) aboard the fleet). If something is out there we should get a whiff of it at least. Our strike planes are at 15,000 feet 6/7 hex range, the Zeros aboard the fleet are at 70%, 7 hex range, 15,000 feet. [image]local://upfiles/7611/1A8D8126BEDD450C9042826DDB702FE2.jpg[/image]

Dili -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/26/2009 11:34:00 AM)
Btw how is handled ship airplanes sector search? I suppose direction of the fleet is the reference or not?

jwilkerson -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/26/2009 4:31:45 PM)
Yes the track in the screen shot is the plotted path of the fleet. As to the air search sectors, whew with about 50 different airgroups on search the answer would be long. Briefly, the short legged float planes, Petes and Daves are on 360d ASW 1000 feet, 100% .... a few are stood down to relieve those that get tired. The Jakes are roughly set to search 60d to 300d at 10 hexes, 21,000 feet 100% but again several are stood down in reserve. The Maxis and Emily (at Kavieng and Buka respectively) are seaching 90d to 240d at max range, as are the Betty's at Rabaul. Lastly the Alf's are set to recon, max range, 21,000 feet, they will be increasing the DL in Lunga in case we decide to attack that base. The Babs at Shortlands have been targeted to recon Lunga for the last couple of weeks, so the DL is already built up a bit.

Dili -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/26/2009 4:46:15 PM)
Sorry i mean the the fleet search planes only, including the non-floatplanes like Val's and Kate's. For example do you put more planes to search in front of fleet giving say the 180º half circle in plotted path instead of equal 360º all around?

Q-Ball -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/26/2009 4:51:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson Some Beaufighters from Lunga came up and attacked the Ashigara which is covering our tanker which is unloading at Short. Great AAR if I haven't said before! Just curious, why is Ashigara covering the tanker during the daytime? Are you concerned about an Allied night surface run? Not sure how large that surface force is, if it's a single CA I would be concerned that those Aussie cruisers would pummel it if they did attempt a night raid. I would also be concerned about Dauntlesses out of Lunga, if I am not mistaken they are in range of Shortlands, and a couple 1000lbers would really hurt. Unless there is a difference in AE I am missing? I am having trouble adjusting the ranges on these new maps, is Shortlands within range of a night run from Lunga by a fast CA/DD force? (which I think in AE is 9 hexes, right? In WITP the magic number was 6)

Sardaukar -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/26/2009 5:21:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili Sorry i mean the the fleet search planes only, including the non-floatplanes like Val's and Kate's. For example do you put more planes to search in front of fleet giving say the 180º half circle in plotted path instead of equal 360º all around? I have suspicion, that degrees in search arcs do not depend on TF direction, but are absolute. That means 0 is north, 180 is south, no matter what direction TF is travelling. But I bet jwilkerson can shed more light to it. [8D]

jwilkerson -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/26/2009 7:48:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili Sorry i mean the the fleet search planes only, including the non-floatplanes like Val's and Kate's. For example do you put more planes to search in front of fleet giving say the 180º half circle in plotted path instead of equal 360º all around? Not using Vals and Kates for search - only Jakes. The Petes and Daves are doing ASW and the Alf's are doing recon. Petes and Daves are 360d ... Jakes are 60d to 300d ... Alf's are on recon mission so no arc.

jwilkerson -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/26/2009 7:49:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar I have suspicion, that degrees in search arcs do not depend on TF direction, but are absolute. That means 0 is north, 180 is south, no matter what direction TF is travelling. But I bet jwilkerson can shed more light to it. [8D] Correct. Search sectors are map relative.

jwilkerson -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/26/2009 7:53:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Q-Ball why is Ashigara covering the tanker during the daytime? Ashigara is covering the tanker in the night time and the day time. Why? To protect the tanker. And BTW it worked - 13 Beaufighter attacked - they picked the Ashigara as their target and missed. There are always risks - the commander must weigh the risks and benefits and take his chances. In real life I think I would cover a tanker delivering to a forward base. In the game it might be silly because I have far more tankers sitting at Truk than I can use due to the darth of fuel. But I continuously screw up and order my forces to do things like I think I would IRL - this is no exception. [:D]

Dili -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/26/2009 10:03:59 PM)
quote: Correct. Search sectors are map relative. no good! [:)] Thanks Joe.

EUBanana -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/27/2009 12:49:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson Correct. Search sectors are map relative. Reminds me of Harpoon...

jwilkerson -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/27/2009 2:21:06 AM)
04-05 December 1942 Solomons Our fleet launched a long range fighter sweep against Lunga, sending in about 30 A6M2 from two different ships, hard to tell exactly what the losses were, but looks like we faced about 34 Wildcats and lost 16 A6M2 for about 13 of the enemy. We see a giant USN carrier fleet several hexes East of Lunga, but they did not intervene in the action. Amphibious units continued South towards Shortlands, as did the AOs. B-24s continued day light raids against Shortlands. Papua Our Lily's from Wewak launched a night attack against PM losing one of their number of obtaining no results. Planning The fleet will withdraw WNW to refuel. The Amphibs will continue to the jump off position for the run in to Tass. It looks like Nik will not commit his carriers until we try to land supplies or troops on Tass - and that Lunga strike planes are set to short ranged missions so they don't "expend" themselves against our carriers at long range. Here is a pic of the air action. [image]local://upfiles/7611/453A0A9EEDFF4582BB31780CA336AFBF.jpg[/image]

jwilkerson -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/27/2009 2:33:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili quote: Correct. Search sectors are map relative. no good! Well maybe we're not understanding each other. Searches from AE task forces always originate from the TF, but the search sectors are absolute not relative to the heading of the TF, but to the map degree heading from the TF. Based on the data I have, this is how both USN and IJN did things in 1942. If you have another understanding please share.

Fishbed -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/27/2009 2:49:27 AM)
I still don't understand some of your moves boss. You sacrified unvaluable assets to a quite hazardous strike while you could have sent the Kongs bombard the crap out of Henderson field...

jwilkerson -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/27/2009 4:14:42 AM)
Lunga is swarmed by light forces, PT boats by the multitudes, mine sweepers etc. Likely result of one single surface attack on Lunga would be loss of several Japanese surface ships who would not clear the area sufficiently to avoid Lunga based strikes and minimal temporary damage to the airfield. We could try to attack the enemy surface forces and clear them out - to enable sustained bombardments of Lunga - but to me this is lower priority. Must win the carrier battle before focusing planes on Lunga and the ships there. In terms of ability to capture Lunga in the remaining time - only getting massive amounts of supply aboard TASS and then landing the 17A will make any difference. Besides that we have to win the carrier battle at roughly a 2-1 ratio in carriers and planes - which is extremely unlikely - but also a pre-requisite - otherwise the troops on the ground will be bombed endlessly by Lunga and Espiritu based bombers.

jwilkerson -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/27/2009 4:45:15 AM)
06-07-08-09 December 1942 Solomons Great Solomons Turkey shoot finally happens over 08-09 December. At the end of the Battle we have 40(ready) out of 64(total) remaining carrier planes aboard the fleet with 1 CV sunk and 2 sinking. We think we damaged one Allied CV. Here is a pic of our first wave going in. [image]local://upfiles/7611/27ECF51D8B4544FC9EB1DDC30468409D.jpg[/image]

jwilkerson -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/27/2009 4:50:37 AM)
08-09 December 1942 Here are some excerpts from the combat report AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 08, 42 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on TF, near Auki at 115,135 Weather in hex: Overcast Raid detected at 160 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 60 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 34 B5N1 Kate x 68 D3A1 Val x 9 D3A2 Val x 77 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 117 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed B5N1 Kate: 42 destroyed, 9 damaged D3A1 Val: 6 destroyed D3A2 Val: 38 destroyed, 12 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 3 destroyed Allied Ships BB Indiana BB North Carolina, Torpedo hits 1 BB South Dakota, Bomb hits 1 CLAA Atlanta CA Chester CV Saratoga CV Wasp, Torpedo hits 2 CV Hornet ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on TF, near Rekata Bay at 113,133 Weather in hex: Clear sky Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 47 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 80 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 97 SBD-3 Dauntless x 120 TBF-1 Avenger x 42 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 27 destroyed SBD-3 Dauntless: 2 destroyed, 45 damaged TBF-1 Avenger: 23 damaged Japanese Ships CV Zuikaku, Bomb hits 7, heavy fires, heavy damage BB Haruna, Bomb hits 3, on fire CA Chikuma, Bomb hits 1, on fire CV Shokaku, Bomb hits 6, heavy fires DD Akizuki BB Kongo, Bomb hits 4, on fire CL Kinu, Bomb hits 3, on fire CA Tone DD Makigumo, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires CA Atago, Bomb hits 1, on fire CA Chokai CL Tenryu DD Takanami CA Maya, Bomb hits 2, on fire CL Sendai, Bomb hits 2, on fire ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Rekata Bay at 113,133 Weather in hex: Severe storms Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 47 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 27 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 30 SBD-3 Dauntless x 79 TBF-1 Avenger x 35 No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 3 destroyed SBD-3 Dauntless: 4 destroyed, 24 damaged TBF-1 Avenger: 3 destroyed, 27 damaged Japanese Ships CV Hiyo, Bomb hits 1, on fire CA Myoko, Bomb hits 1, on fire CL Tatsuta, Bomb hits 1, on fire DD Arashi BB Yamato, Bomb hits 4, Torpedo hits 1, on fire CV Zuikaku, heavy damage CV Junyo DD Nowaki CL Isuzu, Bomb hits 1, on fire CA Haguro, Bomb hits 1 DD Tanikaze CA Aoba Planning Based on this result, the fleet will head back to Truk to try to preserve as many damaged units as possible. The ability to land and sustain 17th Army aboard Guadalcanal has been irrepairably damaged. What remains, is to try to hold on in the Solomons and Papua as long as possible with submarine and fast transport supply covered by land based air and limited surface force intervention.

Terminus -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/27/2009 7:25:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fishbed I still don't understand some of your moves boss. You sacrified unvaluable assets to a quite hazardous strike while you could have sent the Kongs bombard the crap out of Henderson field... "Bombard the crap out of" doesn't work the way it did in stock.

moose1999 -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/27/2009 9:56:51 AM)
Wow, those are some heavy casualties your strike force took when attacking the American carriers. While they only took minimal losses attacking yours... Judging by the low losses of your escort and his intercepting fighters, most of your losses seem to stem from flak. Is this correct? I've heard that the flack has been toned up in AE, but these losses seem a bit on the wild side. And the disproportion between his and your losses stands out too. Is American flak generally more effective than Japanese? Or is it down to plane vulnerability (he did have quite a few damaged planes). Or is it just the dice at play...?

aciddrinker -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/27/2009 12:05:00 PM)
I think this losses are more like quote: A6M2 Zero x 34 vs F4F-4 Wildcat x 117. Huge CAP over KB. Probably some Wildcat's attacked Escort, other just passed and attacked bombers. And we need remeber about FoW.

Fishbed -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/27/2009 12:20:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus quote: ORIGINAL: Fishbed I still don't understand some of your moves boss. You sacrified unvaluable assets to a quite hazardous strike while you could have sent the Kongs bombard the crap out of Henderson field... "Bombard the crap out of" doesn't work the way it did in stock. Yes, but I was referring to the way it did in real...

jwilkerson -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/27/2009 1:56:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fishbed Yes, but I was referring to the way it did in real... Historically, there was one BB bombardment of Lunga that generates all the attention , this one happened night of 13/14 October. Certainly a lot of colorful descriptions of this bombardment come from the US side, and I'm sure anyone going through it would have thought the world was ending, but the next day, despite the "horrendous pounding" dozens of sorties were flown and the fighters at Henderson field meet a double wave Betty/Zero strike over the base and shot down a number of enemy planes as they had been doing over the previous days. In AE as in stock, raising the DL against the base prior to a naval bombardment will make a big difference in the results, but having several groups of PTs blocking your path will also make a difference - and that's what I was seeing as the issue - I didn't want to waste sorties shooting up the PT boats while I was fighting a carrier battle!

spence -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/27/2009 1:58:39 PM)
quote: Yes, but I was referring to the way it did in real... One needs to remember that "the way it did in real" happened exactly ONCE, that said bombardment had a special fire control team flown in prior, that there were relatively few personnel casualties (compared to most Vanilla bombardments by IJN BBs), that Henderson Field(s) still managed to launch strikes against the IJN transports on the day following the bombardment in spite of damage to planes and field that in reality, the "sure thing shoot and scoot" of WitP cost the Japanese a couple of DDs and a cruiser (Kinugasa) sunk by Henderson Field a/c before they scooted far enough away (different bombardments/Tokyo Express missions) Sounds to me like "real" is more real than previously

Fishbed -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/27/2009 2:40:28 PM)
Hey Superman it's ok, bitchin around about JFB stuff is not on my agenda. And we're talking about the single bombardment mission that went unopposed. Yes, hardly representative. But again, well, the single time with big guns that went unopposed. And let's be realistic too: although the bombardment wasn't an all-out holocaust, there were only 7 SBD out of 39 who could take the air immediately, not a single TBF was operational, and the USAAF fighter force was reduced to ready 4 P-400 et 2 P-39. VF-5 lost 4 F4F out of 12, with 2 damaged. Nearly the whole avgas reserve got torched. And yes, Fighter One got spared with all the Marine fighters. Still it can't be said it wasn't effective or something. The "launch strikes against the IJN transports" will not help, especially seeing it was made of 5 SBD and a couple P400... But I understand fairly well Jwilkerson's argument about a possible nuisance force at Lunga.

Dili -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/27/2009 2:40:44 PM)
quote: Well maybe we're not understanding each other. Searches from AE task forces always originate from the TF, but the search sectors are absolute not relative to the heading of the TF, but to the map degree heading from the TF. Based on the data I have, this is how both USN and IJN did things in 1942. If you have another understanding please share. Yes probably.Every time i see defined search path of a carrier(modern) based force is relative to their heading in open sea. Coast and perceived local threats can change that, tough anti-submarine searches doesn't change much unless speed is slow and then tends to go to 360º with no much bias to fleet heading. If you say that it is how it was made in 1942 then it is okay. ----- What was the idea of depleting the fleet fighter force making a sweep at Lunga before the carrier battle?

jwilkerson -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/27/2009 3:07:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili What was the idea of depleting the fleet fighter force making a sweep at Lunga before the carrier battle? The idea was to deplete the enemy fighter force!

Dili -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/27/2009 4:26:38 PM)
Napoleon says one enemy at each time.[:D]

jimh009 -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/27/2009 4:35:06 PM)
After seeing the results of this battle, since the Allied SBD's and Avengers seemed to break cleanly through the CAP screen, do you think the battle might have gone better to have had your carriers more concentrated (perhaps 2 CV's per TF) instead of 1 CV per TF? This would allow for more AA per TF. The Allied player had very few losses of their bombers...so it seems that the Jap AA wasn't very effective.

jwilkerson -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/27/2009 4:50:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili Napoleon says one enemy at each time.[:D] And that was essentially the argument I used for not going after the PT Boats - but I also believe that during the 04-05 November time period, the USN carriers would be likely to be out of position - and hence no carrier battle would happen. So this gave me a bit of time to try to weaken their "5th Carrier" the airbase at Lunga. In the subsequent carrier battle, Lunga strikes did not achieve any hits on the fleet.

jwilkerson -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/27/2009 4:53:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jimh009 After seeing the results of this battle, since the Allied SBD's and Avengers seemed to break cleanly through the CAP screen, do you think the battle might have gone better to have had your carriers more concentrated (perhaps 2 CV's per TF) instead of 1 CV per TF? This would allow for more AA per TF. The Allied player had very few losses of their bombers...so it seems that the Jap AA wasn't very effective. I think concentrating the carriers would just have increased the damage - that is why I split them up!

Page: << < prev 5 6 7 [8] 9 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.234009