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: DISASTER IN BURMA!

 
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: DISASTER IN BURMA! Page: <<   < prev  41 42 [43] 44 45   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/22/2010 4:47:06 AM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		This comment is mostly directed to crsutton:

I don't see that the Tojo is "uber" or needs tweaking. I think what your problem with the Tojo amounts to is the problem of the altitude bonus. Is that so? The absolute advantage of altitude is what needs to be fixed. In some ways it is reminiscent of stock witp where speed was absolute king: a plane that was 1 knot faster than its opponent won 9 times out of ten. Here it seems that a plane that is 1 foot above its opponent wins. That might not be so bad, except when every single one of 300-400 planes on CAP (as an example) gets the altitude advantage, something is out of whack.

(in reply to vicberg)
Post #: 1261
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/22/2010 5:15:12 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline 		Size 1 air fields were pretty much dirt strips which zeros could take off from , i couldnt see how you could shutdown it down  - surely you could make a new dirt strip within 24 hours where there were no craters or even the road to the airport and it would be only a minor inconvenience to cap operations.  Shutting down a runway used by heavier bombers however is easily possible.

Does anyone know if the game models this eg 200 hits on a size 1 runway are easy to repair but difficult on a size 9 ?

_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 1262
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/22/2010 5:18:58 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vicberg

PZB,

I've enjoyed your AAR and feel compelled to post.

Crsutton, i totally agree about too many planes in the air. I also agree that the allies should be able to shut down where they want. I believe though that shutting something down should come at a cost. Even B-29s had a 30% loss by end of war (roughly 10% per raid). B-24s and B17s had a higher rate of loss. Most AARs say the same thing. The 4Es are unstoppable against fighters and don't seem to suffer the operational losses. If unescorted bombers are outnumbered 10-1, one would think some damage would be done.

The supply bug is definately there. There's no way that 200,000 troops can be supplied accross 120 miles of jungle between India and Burma and a major river with no bridge, not without massive air transport that I highly doubt the aliies have in 42.

I ran accross the same problem playing as Jap in China. I had all of southern China from Hangchow to Kanhsien, plus controlled the bridges accross the major river running south of Nanchang. I isolated Chuhsien expecting them to be out of supply. For 3 weeks, my opponent told me that his base had zero supplies, but his troops were fully supplied, in spite of daily bombardments, bombings and repeated attacks. Closet chinese supply base was 240 miles away(!) and supplies were able to move overland, accross a major river, rough terrain, enemy controlled territory, without impedment. That's a bug.

Japanese strength lies in air power and naval power in 42-43. The massive land attack negates japanese naval power and the 4E issue negates japanese air power.



Well, I just checked some figures. 21st bomber command lost 334 total B29s in action. 52 to fighters, 47 to AA and 216 to other-mostly operational I guess. 20th bomber command lost about 80, 22 due to fighters, 7 from AA and the rest were "other".

I understand that operational losses were higher in the early days when the bombers were suffering from teething problems but losses declined steadily after LeMay switched to night missions. I suppose there were various reasons for this. Lack of night fighters and radar, and the collaspe of the Japanese economy and defenses as well. But I think it was down to single digit percentage wise in the later stages.

My understanding from players who are deeper into the game is that the George fighter does a very nice job on bombers..

God bless the "University of Google"

We had better let PzB have his AAR back......

< Message edited by crsutton -- 8/22/2010 5:21:11 AM >

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to vicberg)
Post #: 1263
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/22/2010 7:45:03 AM   
BBfanboy


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

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Size 1 air fields were pretty much dirt strips which zeros could take off from , i couldnt see how you could shutdown it down  - surely you could make a new dirt strip within 24 hours where there were no craters or even the road to the airport and it would be only a minor inconvenience to cap operations.  Shutting down a runway used by heavier bombers however is easily possible.

Does anyone know if the game models this eg 200 hits on a size 1 runway are easy to repair but difficult on a size 9 ?


Japanese ability to build/repair even a dirt strip was poor. They started the airstrip on Guadalcanal in early May 42 and it was seen during the strike on Tulagi that kicked off the Coral Sea battles. Three months later when the marines landed the strip was still not complete. Japan suffered for lack of engineers and construction troops. For this reason I think 200 holes dished out by 500 lb bombs would definitely take them some time to fill in and pack hard enough for airplane tires. A soft spot is a recipe for a noseover!
The US didn't have to pack so religiously because they had perforated steel plating [PSP] to provide the hard surface needed. The AARs I have read seem to show that the Allies can repair much more quickly so I guess this is built into the model.

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 1264
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/22/2010 2:26:41 PM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

There is little risk to the Netties if they bomb at night. Might be worth setting one or two 36 plane Nell groups to 11K night raids.



what a Japanese player should never forget about night bombing is that the Allied can do the same, with 20 times more payload... Would the Japanese start bombing my airfields at night, I would pay it back for sure...

_____________________________


(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 1265
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/22/2010 4:29:58 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		Ah, the discussion of 4E problems again. While I agree, that 4Es in the game are massively overpowered compared to reality (there are a few examples of small flights of Liberators running into Oscars outnumbering them 5:1 in RL, and they ended badly to very badly for Liberators), they are not unstoppable (except if you use them on low naval, which sort of breaks the game). Zeros, in particular, can take them down at decent rate (counting ops losses on the return trip). And Allies really don't get much of them, so the Allied player must preserve and stockpile planes assidiously until 1943 to achieve any effect.



< Message edited by FatR -- 8/22/2010 4:30:00 PM >

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1266
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/22/2010 7:28:32 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

This comment is mostly directed to crsutton:

I don't see that the Tojo is "uber" or needs tweaking. I think what your problem with the Tojo amounts to is the problem of the altitude bonus. Is that so? The absolute advantage of altitude is what needs to be fixed. In some ways it is reminiscent of stock witp where speed was absolute king: a plane that was 1 knot faster than its opponent won 9 times out of ten. Here it seems that a plane that is 1 foot above its opponent wins. That might not be so bad, except when every single one of 300-400 planes on CAP (as an example) gets the altitude advantage, something is out of whack.



I don't disagree here. My opponent and I have agreed to an altitude CAP of 29,000 feet and the tojo is no longer such a killer. It is a little better but not much more so than the P40s and spits seem to do well vs it. I suppose my real problem is that there are so many of them in 1942. They are still slightly better and if no gentlemen's agreement is in place can go higher, combined with overall better pilots and it was just a deadly mix.

I consider the altitude problem to be one of the most serious issues in the game.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 1267
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/22/2010 9:16:46 PM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3890
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline
quote:



I consider the altitude problem to be one of the most serious issues in the game.


+ 1


_____________________________


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 1268
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/24/2010 9:12:05 AM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

Well, I've never done better and never managed to directly shoot down more than a couple of B-17s in any circumstances in AE.
It could of course be that the Tojo doesn't pack enough punch but with high quality pilots and so many fighters I would expect more.

- One of the problems may be that in AE all the fighters go in piecemeal; in real life they would go in 2 and 2 or more and disrupt the defensive gunners.

One thing I know and that is that we can never stop or turn back a formation of 50+ Forts, not even with 250 Tojo's.



There is a a point of diminishing returns. 1,000 Tojos vs. 6 forts would likely yield the same result. A savvy commander charged with defending a 40 nm hex would not likely commit all 1,000 Tojos to 6 enemy bombers. Force allocation would dictate that a proportional or "sufficient" force be detailed to attack the small raid. The rest of the group being held in reserve for further/larger attacks. What you have to ask is, did the B-17s succeed in THEIR mission? If the answer is no, then you won, and your commander was successful. And in this case it only took 73 Tojos to accomplish the Task.

Another dynamic is perhaps 73 Tojos attempted and intercept, but how many actually made it into position to make an effective attack? That info is not typically included in the CR. It occurs behind the curtain. Before you ask, that was not included in CRs as it was OTS(outside the Scope) for AE. SOME FoW needs to remain.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1269
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/24/2010 10:04:10 AM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline 		4Es in 42 are not nearly as bad as the JFB thinks. I lost about a dozen in a week of hard fighting trying to bomb CVs as I had nothing else, and I'm still paying for that 2 months later, their replacement rate is so bad.

And night bombing over a few days practically eliminates them as a threat in 1942. You get so many 'damaged' results and 4Es take so long to fix (it can take up to 3 weeks to fix a single damaged 4E) that within a day or two you can get them down to 50% operable. The Japs don't suffer this problem so much as their service ratings are so much better and damaged results that much less crippling, so Allies night bombing back isn't such an issue.

Of course weight of numbers will have its way in the end, but in 1942, of all the broken things in the game, the 4E bomber is pretty low down on the list of brokenness.

_____________________________


(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 1270
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/24/2010 11:25:01 PM   
aprezto


Posts: 824
Joined: 1/29/2009
Status: offline 		The 4E issue for the JFB is the apparent inability to stop the raid - no matter what they do. That's depressing. However, as many point out, it is also not unrealistic.
Both sides have instances of this 'depression'. No use listing them, most of us will know them.
In the case of 4Es JFBs are affecting the 4E raids, either in this case, where their bombing run is ineffectual due to lack of coordination and damage, or losses occur on the flight back, logged as operational losses - but no less 'lost'.
As the AFBs are want to highlight, they don't get many of their most potent weapon. Any losses, be it direct loss or operational, hurt. The JFB will highlight the pain of having an airfield shutdown in one or two raids and not being able to stop it.
I really do not feel this is too imbalanced - but then that's my 2 cents worth. Sorry John - I return the floor to you...

_____________________________



Image courtesy of Divepac

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 1271
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/25/2010 4:32:49 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf


... perhaps 73 Tojos attempted and intercept, but how many actually made it into position to make an effective attack? That info is not typically included in the CR. It occurs behind the curtain. Before you ask, that was not included in CRs as it was OTS(outside the Scope) for AE. SOME FoW needs to remain.


Ah. Thanks for this insight. So, there are limits on how many could get into position for an attack (no doubt a model with a random modifier)? That explains much. Thanks.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 1272
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 9/3/2010 4:26:40 AM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf


... perhaps 73 Tojos attempted and intercept, but how many actually made it into position to make an effective attack? That info is not typically included in the CR. It occurs behind the curtain. Before you ask, that was not included in CRs as it was OTS(outside the Scope) for AE. SOME FoW needs to remain.


Ah. Thanks for this insight. So, there are limits on how many could get into position for an attack (no doubt a model with a random modifier)? That explains much. Thanks.



Yes. This is one of the barriers we put in place to help defeat the Uber Air Battle problem from Stock WitP. In addition to classifying CAP in to Airborne, Ready, and reserve with associated staggered delay or readiness times we also concluded that a large CAP of say 73 Tojos across a 40nm Hex might not necessarily be one contiguous or coordinated unit. In fact it could be several small units or packets. Likewise, even a Wing commander leading a full wing of Tojos has a responsibility to cover all the possible targets in the entire 40nm hex. He wouldn't likely use his entire force to engage a small 6 plane B-17 raid. He would detail a subordinate portion of his force to deal with them while the rest awaited a larger follow on force or provide support to the detailed unit.

This concept is known as economy of Force. If all 73 Tojos attacked at the same time they would just get in each other's way and make a strong force of Tojos ineffective for follow on engagements.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 1273
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 9/3/2010 5:00:02 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf


... perhaps 73 Tojos attempted and intercept, but how many actually made it into position to make an effective attack? That info is not typically included in the CR. It occurs behind the curtain. Before you ask, that was not included in CRs as it was OTS(outside the Scope) for AE. SOME FoW needs to remain.


Ah. Thanks for this insight. So, there are limits on how many could get into position for an attack (no doubt a model with a random modifier)? That explains much. Thanks.



Yes. This is one of the barriers we put in place to help defeat the Uber Air Battle problem from Stock WitP. In addition to classifying CAP in to Airborne, Ready, and reserve with associated staggered delay or readiness times we also concluded that a large CAP of say 73 Tojos across a 40nm Hex might not necessarily be one contiguous or coordinated unit. In fact it could be several small units or packets. Likewise, even a Wing commander leading a full wing of Tojos has a responsibility to cover all the possible targets in the entire 40nm hex. He wouldn't likely use his entire force to engage a small 6 plane B-17 raid. He would detail a subordinate portion of his force to deal with them while the rest awaited a larger follow on force or provide support to the detailed unit.

This concept is known as economy of Force. If all 73 Tojos attacked at the same time they would just get in each other's way and make a strong force of Tojos ineffective for follow on engagements.


Thanks!


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 1274
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 9/16/2010 10:42:27 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		Back from vacation and back to real life...!

Rather busy these days so not a lot of reports.
Have exchanged a handful of turns with Andy; nothing great to report as we are 2 weeks away from Xmas 42!

Over the last couple of turns 2 large enemy minelayers have been sunk by the KB as they mined the Noka Hiva in the Marquese islands.
My plan here is to rout the enemy troops and consider an invasion of Tahiti; we have really cut of the South Pacific and Andy is probably sending most of his convoys around some other oceans to
get to India and Oz

Rather quiet on other fronts, even Burma.
- I'm building strength here and repairing damage and expanding bases. Mandalay will be a size 4 AF tomorrow.
What's interesting is that Shwebo is still a size 1 airbase even with 4500 Allied AV there. This must be a result of the enemy running low on supplies and not having anything to expand the base with

In the Central Pacific the Musashi is enroute to join the Yamato.
Shipyards are still low even though only the Taiho is accelerated; may have to expand capacity and turn of some subs to be able to accelerate the Unryu's.


_____________________________



"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 PaxMondo)
Post #: 1275
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 9/17/2010 2:32:04 AM   
aprezto


Posts: 824
Joined: 1/29/2009
Status: offline 		Who are you again?

_____________________________



Image courtesy of Divepac

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1276
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 9/18/2010 6:32:24 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		Just a lurker that drops into this thread every now and then to add a few comments 

Andy used 5-6 Catalines escorted by Wildcats over the Marqueses today and attacked our surface group there.
Results were poor, 4-5 Wildcats lost to Zero's and a Cat to ops. Otherwise a quiet turn.

- Looks like Andy is having severe problems supplying Tennant Creek, could be a bonus to our defensive efforts in the area.
We continue to bomb and harass both Tennant Creek and troops in the area.


_____________________________



"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 aprezto)
Post #: 1277
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 9/19/2010 1:41:02 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		ALL HANDS TO BATTLE STATIONS - ENEMY CARRIERS IN SIGHT!!!


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 10, 42

Air Combat

Today we executed a beautifully coordinated attack on Dacca; an enemy heavy bomber hub!
Several enemy training units got caught up in the attack. We destroyed only a couple of heavies on the ground but this will make Andy nervous.
Either he has to place CAP over the base and become vulnerable to sweeps, or he has to live with the risks...or move his heavies out.

I could have added 100 naval bombers to the raid but I can't risk our crack naval aviators even for enemy 4E raiding!

Morning Air attack on Dacca , at 56,38
Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 12 NM, estimated altitude 20,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 53
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 54

Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIc Trop x 4
P-39D Airacobra x 9
P-40E Warhawk x 8
P-40K Warhawk x 2

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 1 destroyed, 20 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Hurricane IIc Trop: 1 damaged
P-39D Airacobra: 1 destroyed
B-17E Fortress: 1 destroyed on ground
Wellington Ic: 1 destroyed on ground

Airbase hits 5
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 9

Aircraft Attacking:
25 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 15000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
27 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 15000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
No.5 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIc Trop (3 airborne, 4 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 19000 , scrambling fighters to 19000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 14 minutes
23rd FG/74th FS with P-39D Airacobra (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 19000
Raid is overhead
23rd FG/75th FS with P-39D Airacobra (2 airborne, 6 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 19000 , scrambling fighters to 19000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 12 minutes
23rd FG/76th FS with P-40E Warhawk (7 airborne, 6 on standby, 0 scrambling)
7 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 19000 , scrambling fighters to 19000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 14 minutes
23rd FG/Hq Sqn with P-40K Warhawk (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 19000
Raid is overhead

Training flight from No.5 Sqn RAF has been caught up in attack
Training flight from 23rd FG/76th FS has been caught up in attack
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Tojo's can only sweep Comilla, one hex shorter range than to Dacca!

Morning Air attack on Comilla , at 56,39
Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 41 NM, estimated altitude 33,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 27

Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIc Trop x 1

No Japanese losses
No Allied losses

Aircraft Attacking:
27 x Ki-44-IIa Tojo sweeping at 30000 feet *

CAP engaged:
No.5 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIc Trop (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 1 scrambling)
Group patrol altitude is 19000 , scrambling fighters to 19000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 37 minutes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lots of activity near Nuku Hiva again; Catalinas came back without escorts...but more interesting; a large group of enemy
ships were spotted to the north and enemy dive bombers came flying over the island!!

Morning Air attack on TF, near Nuku Hiva at 191,167
Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 10 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 4

Allied aircraft
PBY-4 Catalina x 4

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
PBY-4 Catalina: 1 destroyed

CAP engaged:
284 Ku S-1 Det A with A6M2 Zero (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(4 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suddenly 160 Allied carrier ac streamed over Nuku Hiva and attacked our surface TF there.
The light cruiser Oi led 6 destroyers; in the poor weather only the Oi and a destroyer was hit.
Quite amazing considering how many bombers that attacked us!

Another 2 waves of 2x14 torpedo bombers failed to cause any further damage in the AM turn!

Morning Air attack on TF, near Nuku Hiva at 191,167
Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 40 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 2

Allied aircraft
Albacore I x 12
Martlet II x 16
F4F-4 Wildcat x 41
SBD-3 Dauntless x 78
TBF-1 Avenger x 11

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Albacore I: 1 damaged
SBD-3 Dauntless: 1 destroyed, 16 damaged
TBF-1 Avenger: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
CL Oi, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Hibiki, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Ikazuchi
DD Kuroshio
DD Naganami
DD Inazuma
DD Fubuki

Aircraft Attacking:
8 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
17 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
2 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
6 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
11 x TBF-1 Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
12 x Albacore I launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Mk XII Torpedo
4 x F4F-4 Wildcat sweeping at 12000 feet
4 x F4F-4 Wildcat sweeping at 10000 feet
8 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x F4F-4 Wildcat sweeping at 10000 feet
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
8 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
8 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
284 Ku S-1 Det A with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(2 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 6000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 34 minutes

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CL Oi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Nuku Hiva at 191,167
Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 34 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 16 minutes

Allied aircraft
TBF-1 Avenger x 14

Allied aircraft losses
TBF-1 Avenger: 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
DD Naganami
DD Inazuma
DD Fubuki
CL Oi, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Ikazuchi

Aircraft Attacking:
14 x TBF-1 Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Nuku Hiva at 191,167
Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 43 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 20 minutes

Allied aircraft
TBF-1 Avenger x 14

Allied aircraft losses
TBF-1 Avenger: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
DD Inazuma
DD Naganami
DD Kuroshio
DD Fubuki

Aircraft Attacking:
14 x TBF-1 Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the afternoon the story repeated itself; Catalinas came in first and suffered.
Then another large carrier attack wave came in and only managed to score a single bomb it.
A DMS heading south was also spotted but had less luck and was sunk. Thus the entire Allied carrier force
launched their full might and only succeeded in sinking a light cruiser, a destroyer and a DMS. Another 2 destroyers
are moderately damaged.

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Nuku Hiva at 191,167
Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 25 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 3

Allied aircraft
PBY-4 Catalina x 3

No Japanese losses

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
DD Fubuki

CAP engaged:
284 Ku S-1 Det A with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(3 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 23 minutes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Nuku Hiva at 191,167
Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 44 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 17 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 2

Allied aircraft
Albacore I x 12
Martlet II x 16
F4F-4 Wildcat x 32
SBD-3 Dauntless x 77
TBF-1 Avenger x 35

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Albacore I: 2 damaged
SBD-3 Dauntless: 1 destroyed, 9 damaged
TBF-1 Avenger: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
DD Inazuma
DD Fubuki, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Hibiki, heavy fires, heavy damage
CL Oi, and is sunk

Aircraft Attacking:
10 x TBF-1 Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
12 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
7 x Martlet II sweeping at 10000 feet
15 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
14 x TBF-1 Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
6 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
2 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
11 x TBF-1 Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
3 x Albacore I bombing from 5000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 500 lb GP Bomb
5 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x F4F-4 Wildcat sweeping at 15000 feet
12 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
1 x Albacore I bombing from 2000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
8 x Albacore I bombing from 3000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 500 lb GP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
284 Ku S-1 Det A with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 6000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 18 minutes

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DD Hibiki
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Eiao at 189,163
Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 12 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 18
SBD-3 Dauntless x 17

Allied aircraft losses
SBD-3 Dauntless: 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
DMS Tatsuko, Bomb hits 4, and is sunk

Aircraft Attacking:
5 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
8 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 10000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DMS Tatsuko
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enemy Carriers Attack Nuku Hiva

No doubt Andy expected to find something at Nuku; over the last couple of days the KB has sunk 2 large minelayers in the area.
The KB launched only small strikes but I'm pretty sure Andy knows it's there and targetted it.





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 #: 1278
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 9/19/2010 2:12:16 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		Actually the KB moved a few hexes to the west last turn to meet with the Hiryu that took on some Val bombers from Christmas Island bound for Nuku Hiva!
Only 10 hexes away the KB was not spotted as the Allied carriers performed their all out assault on Nuku.

7 enemy carrier ac were destroyed and another dozen is probably damaged.

Here is what intel we have on the enemy carriers;
Divided into 3 TFs and there is at least one British carrier.
The third and smallest TF didn't report any bombers, only fighters and "aux" ac.

I would expect the Lexington (ca 90 ac), Saratoga (ca 90ac), Hornet (ca 80 ac), Enterprise (ca 80 ac), Wasp (ca 70 ac) and Formidable (ca 35 ac) to be present.
I expect these carriers to hold ca 400 or less operational carrier ac after todays mission.

Last time Andy also included the CVE Long Island. The reported presence of numerous enemy battleships means a mix of old and new, US and British.
- Enemy top speed would thus be restricted to ca 22-25 knots.

Allied carrier aircrew will have a noticeable fatigue after launching 2 or more strikes at 5 hexes range.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our forces:
The KB has the 6 "Pearl" carriers, 3 battleships, 3 cruisers and destroyers.
We have some 430 operational carrier ac ready for operations and another 30 fighters or so that can support us at Nuku Hiva.

Fuel situation is ok and plenty of strikes are available. Kaga and Akagi must launch torpedo bombers with bombs, the other carriers are stocked with torps for 1 or 2 more strikes.

At Nuku Hiva we have facilities to support 24 Zero's; I can overstack the existing 5 Zekes and 4 Mavi's with 27 Zero's from Christmas Island.
There is a LSD still unloading at the port while 4 destroyers are fully operational with another 2 disbanded in damaged state in the port.

To the west of Nuku Hiva we have a cruiser TF with 3 heavy and 1 light cruiser as well as 4 destroyers under Tanaka.
There are also 2 subs near Nuku.

We have a replenishment fleet closer to Christmas Island which also holds ample fuel reserves.

Our nearest port facilities is Christmas Island with a size 3 port and Naval HQ - the road to Truk is a long one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion

So what does this mean to us;

We have 2 options open for us!
1. We can easily run away as all our forces have superior speed and can hide in the wake of the KB.
2. We can probably force a carrier battle with the enemy.

This is one of those momentus decisions that can shape the course of the war.
Andy obviously wanted to seek battle based on the following reasons:

1. He knows he don't have to face all of Japan's carriers at once.
2. He's fighting close to Pearl and friendly turf.
3. He knows the KB has been on a long mission and may not be at max strength.
4. He wanted to achieve surprise.

After giving away his position today he has lost the surprise element, his strike force has lost some planes and his aviators are tired.
Weather for tomorrow is reported to be "Rain" and the outcome of a carrier engagement would be very uncertain.

- The opposing forces are very evenly matched in carriers and number of ac but Japan holds a superiority in quality.
- The Allied force is divided into 3 carrier divisions with heavy protection while the KB is currently combined in one single TF.
--> If I divide the KB I will not be able to appoint a new admiral to command the independend divisions.
- We can mix the KB with 2 surface combat TFs before a battle.
- If we fight with 1 carrier formation there is a chance that the enemy's 3 car div's will react and loose cohesion.

If we decide to engage we can also try to pick the range; a battle at 9 hexes involving only our Zero's and Kate's would make it impossible for the enemy to retaliate properly.
It's not possible to guarantee that we don't get any close than 9 hexes though.

But everything comes down to this; do we want to engage and risk loosing carrier supremacy before entering 1943?
The risks are almost bigger than the potential rewards. If we loose the KB the Line Islands will be lost followed by the Gilberts and Marshalls in 43 and the Marianas will lay open for attack after that.
An evacuation of Oz will also become much more risky.

If we instead win a decisive battle we will probably secure another 3-6 months of carrier supremacy in the Pacific; Andy will instead advance with the support of LBA.

I hate to say so but I'm far from convinced that we should risk a battle.
Will sleep on it; please let me know what your advice is!

PS!! Looking at the KB TF I notice that something must have happened because there is no admiral in command!!
Must have happened when the Hiryu was split and merged from the force... Not good, a potential engagement without an admiral would be another minus.

PS!!! Both Hornet and Yorktown are still reported sunk. One was nuked in Sydney and the other was torpedoed twice, last time after the Christmas Island engagement.
It's therefore possible that we're "only" facing 4 US and 1 British carriers.
If the strikes launched by the carriers were max size strikes their size even indicates that there are only 3 US and 1 British carrier present.
78 SBD can be divided into ca 6x13 squadrons (there are 2 SBD squadrons with ca 18 ac on each US carrier and it's usual to have 20% of them on naval search).
In each attack there were ca a dozen US TBDs while another 2x14 attacked separately.
This would again indicate 3 US carriers. The Martlets and Albacores come from the British carrier.

Many speculations but we do have an opportunity here; both to win a great victory or to risk loosing the Empire in a single day!!
The question is what damage we can expect to take if the KB is attacked by 2 waves of enemy carrier ac; the first may include 75 SBDs and 50 TBDs.
- If the weather is poor the results will be accordingly but I then think our crack aviators will get the better out of it.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by PzB -- 9/19/2010 2:30:44 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 #: 1279
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 9/19/2010 2:58:32 AM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		You are very, very unlikely to be able to attack from 9 hexes. According to MichaelM, Japanese naval attacks launched from CVs are limited to 8 hexes (so much for the range advantage of the Judy and Jill!) while the allies are limited to 7 hexes.

I would guess Andy might want to retire. So the most logical place to advance to would be towards the hex he is currently in, perhaps with a shot of full speed.

For myself, I would prefer to fight a carrier engagement on terms that are favorable to my side. That means either having LBA support, or outnumbering the enemy. If Andy came down here knowing the KB was around, then he must have been expecting a fight, which would argue that he does not feel that he is significantly outnumbered. Caution might be called for. OTOH, you have 1/3 more carriers than the Japs had at Midway. Maybe that will make all the difference!

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1280
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 9/19/2010 4:25:41 AM   
krupp_88mm


Posts: 406
Joined: 10/13/2008
Status: offline 		japans going to loose the war anyway. well anyway .. unless an extremely bold Bushido warrior leads japan through epic victory over the US.. i say you have to do it, its your fate, your fate is to loose, fearing your fate will mean hiding in its shadow, and succumbing to it, rising to meet your fate will let you stare it down into the shadows and reign supreme over the Pacific.. BANZI!!!

(also 8 hexes is right dont try a 9 hex strike wont work)

(also i dont think he was trying to have an actual carrier battle with you, i think he thought your carriers would be weak retiring or possible at dock and just wanted a cheap shot at some of your ships, he'll most likely withdraw now, are you just going to let him take his cheap shot if you do its his victory)

< Message edited by krupp_88mm -- 9/19/2010 4:32:15 AM >

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 1281
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 9/19/2010 6:22:17 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline 		I, for one, think you should go "all in" and attack . . .
but that's because we spectators enjoy watching the results of Carrier duels


On a completely different topic . . . earlier you noted odd land combat results in Burma, where small Chinese forces were holding off similarly-sized Japanese units. The combat results in both cases indicated that either the Japanese had a Leader(-) adjustment, or the Chinese had a leader(+) (!?!). There is FOW built into that reporting, but have you been monitoring your LCU leaders?

< Message edited by Blackhorse -- 9/19/2010 6:23:02 AM >

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to krupp_88mm)
Post #: 1282
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 9/19/2010 8:33:38 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		I'd withdraw in this situation. The cost of defeat is far greater than benefits of victory, KB is too far from its own bases and is not in the top shape, Allies are better prepared for battle, hardly took enough damage on the previous day and might outnumber you. Remember, that in AE carriers will not necessarily launch full-sized strikes against minor targets.

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 1283
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 9/19/2010 9:01:26 AM   
Reedster

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 7/25/2009
Status: offline 		correct me if I'm wrong but in the old Witp in a CV clash the Allies would always launch first (at least I've never seen the IJN launch a CV strike first)... but in AE it seems either party can attack first?

That said, I would suggest not fighting this one. The Allies seem to have quite a few tactical advantages and with the KB in one TF if the Allied strike launches first, they could cripple the KB response... my 0.02.

< Message edited by Reedster -- 9/19/2010 9:02:23 AM >

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 1284
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 9/19/2010 9:47:37 AM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: Reedster

correct me if I'm wrong but in the old Witp in a CV clash the Allies would always launch first (at least I've never seen the IJN launch a CV strike first)... but in AE it seems either party can attack first?


All strikes that occur in the same air phase (Night, AM, PM) are simultaneous. So you only have an advantage that way if, say, your planes launch in the AM but you opponents don't.

(in reply to Reedster)
Post #: 1285
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 9/19/2010 10:38:15 AM   
janh

 

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline 		Hmmh, very tough call.  I would expect  4 CV + 1 british, although the strikes and constitution of his force point rather to 3+1. 

The question whether to risk a clash would for me come down to the question:  Will there ever be more favorable terms?

- LBA support, yes, at an invasion.  but so far, from what I have seen in other AARs, I get the feeling that this rarely makes a big difference (esp. later for the Japanese, with poor airframes against Hellcats, and a superiority of USN 10 CV + CVL facing KB plus a few LBA squadrons...).
- CV superiority, likely never.
- air frame and pilot experience advantage: presently probably even with slight preference for the Japanese, but very soon the US aircraft will have the edge even if KB stays entirely unscratched
- Naval gun superiority:  Will not matter if the US can later on draw on TF's of 6-10 CV, plus CVL and CVE.  Even if they loose a CV battle, there would be enough CVx left to render BB attacks desperate.

And, how will a favorable victory change the situation now, as opposed to a victory say in 6 or 12 months, which sounds like a reasonable time until rare situations with better chances may occur?
- obviously, a stunning victory early in the game, killing another 2-3 USN CVs at little to no loss would give you CV superiority into 1944, and would make a strategic difference.
- a draw now, would be a long-term allied bonus, and not change the present situation a lot, but cut your initiative by a few months shorter.  Problems like the evacuation of OZ would have be addressed a couple of weeks earlier than the bulk of USN CV reinforcements arrive (do you know the schedule?)
- a loss now would end you offensive campaigns except for raiding convoys, or actions in the Indian ocean.  You'd be on the defense 6 months prior to the situation with intact KB.

- however, a stunning victory in 9 months from now, say stunning with 4 allied CV lost for 2 Jap CV, wouldn't make much of difference to the allied player ("too little, too late").  The US would replace the 4 carriers in less than 6 months, and could probably even without them continue offensive actions, while the KB would need to repair and could not replace the hulks.  Such a victory, while the US machine is on the roll, is but a speed-bump.   You could not even follow up your success and ripe some fruits by hunting down the cripples, the BB/CA/CL, and AO TFs after the battle since the USN would still have more CVL and CVE active than your wounded KB could chew (like Lee, who one many tactic victories, which were essentially strategic losses since he never could follow up the success against McClellan, Hooker, or Grant).

My tendency is to risk combat, even though the situation is less than optimal and bears a high risk.  However, I doubt that such a situation is coming back, not even to think of a better one.  Andy is a careful, but not cautions player.  He will wait until late 1943, when he has enough CV on his hands, before directly targeting KB, so that he can afford an exchange ratio of 1:2 and continue rolling. 
Likely Andy is going to retreat fast now anyway, maybe leaving the slow old BBs behind to lurk you forward, hope you get bogged down with these, and then hit KB from the back-hand.  Although my first though was "engineering" a 7-8 hex strike on his BB while his CV will flee much faster, this now seems like a trap to me.   Either you strike fast and hard at his CV (maybe at maximal range to reduce the bombload and efficiency of his counterstrikes), or run for it...



< Message edited by janh -- 9/19/2010 10:40:18 AM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 1286
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 9/19/2010 11:09:38 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
Sooner, or later there HAVE to be Carrier Battle. US have still non-working torpedoes, KB is full on AA ammo, and have most strikes, and fuel, so slight advantage is still here.
It looks like Midway, but this time Japan is on defending side, and have small superiority.

Are there any patrol planes at Nuku Hiva?

Allies are currently at declining aircraft, and pilot number, after Burma beating, so even more loses in that area could give great advantage.
Japan can park damaged ships at Nuku Hiva, Allies nearest port is.. Hawaii?
So, even lost it won't be large disaster for Japan, and stakes are still for KB now. How far is map edge? If KB can catch some BBs it is worth a risk, if there will be only CV battle it is kinda risky, but still, there could be no better opportunity. Corsairs arrive soon.

Where is nearest base to refill KB air strikes?
I bet there are some CVEs in there.

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 1287
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 9/19/2010 11:22:38 AM   
Grfin Zeppelin


Posts: 1515
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline 		I would preserve my carrier strenght here.IF you win, thats nice but thats always nice but if you lose he will run amok in 43.You are in the middle of nowhere and even a moderatly damaged carrier will be in grave danger.

_____________________________



(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 1288
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 9/19/2010 2:38:19 PM   
Reedster

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 7/25/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reedster

correct me if I'm wrong but in the old Witp in a CV clash the Allies would always launch first (at least I've never seen the IJN launch a CV strike first)... but in AE it seems either party can attack first?


All strikes that occur in the same air phase (Night, AM, PM) are simultaneous. So you only have an advantage that way if, say, your planes launch in the AM but you opponents don't.


got it, thanks

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 1289
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 9/19/2010 3:03:09 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Personally I wouldn't attack now. Andy can be relied upon to make minor errors which allow you to get at him more cheaply than a 50/50 carrier battle like this. He's also cautious so a fleet in being really impacts on his thinking and slows him down.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Reedster)
Post #: 1290
Page:   <<   < prev  41 42 [43] 44 45   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! Page: <<   < prev  41 42 [43] 44 45   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.094