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: I hate subs

 
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: I hate subs Page: <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: I hate subs - 10/2/2010 10:15:30 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		Oct. 14, 1943

I guess one way to turn my subs into unstoppable killing machines is to force them to surface:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine attack near Maloelap at 148,116

Japanese Ships
SS I-164, hits 9, heavy damage

Allied Ships
DD Nicholson
xAK Zoella Lykes, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
xAK Cape Fear, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 1


Allied ground losses:
20 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


SS I-164 launches 4 torpedoes at DD Nicholson
I-164 diving deep ....
DD Nicholson attacking submerged sub ....
SS I-164 forced to surface!
. . . .
Sub slips beneath the waves

Amazingly, after all that, the I-164 still has not sunk. It will probably sink next turn. It has 98 float damage. But I decided not to scuttle her just out of curiosity. It would be very ironic if the I-164 makes it since during the turn I heard the sound of a sub sinking, and it wasn't my sub! Instead, it looks like the S-31 got hit just south of Rabaul. The hex it was in during the combat replay was empty during the orders phase.

I am now up to 9 subs sunk by AC and 7 in the last month. (Well, there is a little FOW there since I am not sure if the Halibut was one of those subs. If so, it was a combined AC/ASW TF effort.)

The Allies have based 24-J's in the Marshalls and bombed Ponape today. They also swept the place from Kusaie with Corsairs. I was not flying CAP, but lost 3 pilots KIA anyway from planes destroyed on the ground. This bugs the hell out of me. I don't care about the planes, but the point of not flying was to keep the pilots healthy. But that doesn't work.

Not sure if the allies are going to move on Ponape yet. I hope so. I am ready.

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 631
RE: I hate subs - 10/3/2010 12:56:42 AM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		My opponent let slip in his latest email that 3 subs have been sunk in the last three days, not just the two I was sure about. That is 10 subs by AC overall, 8 in the last month.

A note on my ASW AC:

I am using Helens at maximum range.
No search arc set.
Trained on ASW to >60
I am not sure, but I think LowN is important too, in this case LowN > 60.
Altitude is set at 1000 feet.
60% ASW 40% Rest


(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 632
RE: I hate subs - 10/3/2010 8:26:56 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		Wow. I need to start training more squadrons for ASW purposes.

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 633
RE: I hate subs - 10/3/2010 10:40:21 AM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline 		I have used several types of aircraft for ASW purposes. As long as they carry 250 kg bombs you should be able to sink subs. It is my experience that lownav does not matter. Just ASW skill 60+ (I have some pilots up to 74-75 skill)and low altitude (100 ft). I estimate I sank 10+ subs in the last few months (confirmation by sound) by mostly ASW air and I am in oktober 1942.

Helens would be well suited because I have started to notice increased losses to my sally bombers by submarine flak hits..

< Message edited by Cannonfodder -- 10/3/2010 10:41:23 AM >

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 634
Battle Stations! - 10/3/2010 8:01:37 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		Oct. 15, 1943

All Hands Battle Stations!

An allied fleet is entering the Timor Sea. I find it very difficult to believe this is an invasion since the allied fleet carriers are still over in the Marshall's. Nevertheless, this needs to be treated as a serious threat. It could be supported by the British CVs which are not accounted for, even though they are not very big. It could be that witpqs will be using LBA, though that seems very iffy, especially since there has not been any air activity in this sector. Maybe this is a diversion to draw off my carrier strength. I will not, however, allow my carriers to be diverted, not when their main prey is still lurking in the central Pacific.

This turn took forever to execute. I took numerous actions to prepare for a possible invasion in the lower DEI. Fighter and bomber squadrons were moved into the Timor region in large numbers. Nells are teamed up with Zero's and set to use torpedoes. Helen's are teamed up with Tojo's are are set to naval attack at 1000 feet. (They are all trained on LowN > 60.) Almost every transport AC in my air fleet was moved to the Celebes in preparation to fly in reinforcements to whatever base is threatened. A reserve division at Singapore was switched out of Strat mode to combat mode so it could board an amphibious invasion fleet. Another division on Java is being moved to Sorebaja in preparation for being loaded on an amphibious invasion fleet. AKs and LSDs at Rabaul will move to team up with escorts tomorrow and then set sail for the DEI. A cruiser TF at Tobali is heading for Sorebaja and then to Kendari, while my Kongo class BBs, along with another cruiser TF are setting sail from Wolei for Kendari. More cruisers and BBs are currently at Singapore and will be formed up in to TFs tomorrow after I check that the allied subs in the area have not laid mines there. Additional AC that were not able to make it to Timor in one jump will have to be rebased again next turn. I am afraid, however, that I have been caught a little off guard, since I do not have surface assets immediately available. The Wolei forces are 4 days away, while the Tobali TF is 2-3 days away.

I see several possibilities here. The allies may be looking to establish a beach head at Roti. They reconed it quite heavily earlier and it does not have a very strong garrison: just an naval guard unit. This target, however, would put the allies into the middle of a hornet's nest of interlocking Japanese bases. Another alternative is that they are going for Samlauki and the bases around it. This would allow them to have multiple bases making it harder for me to keep them suppressed. The allies have been reconning Samlauki every day for at least a month. Another possibility is that this is just a reinforcement convoy for Darwin. That seems unlikely. It is too big and too exposed for that, it seems to me. Finally, this is merely a diversion to draw off my CVs in preparation for an invasion of either Nauru or Ponape. Of course, it could be both a diversion and an invasion as well. Only time will tell.

I have done what I can for now, short of sending the KB. I hope that it is enough, although I am rather concerned.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by cap_and_gown -- 10/3/2010 8:13:32 PM >

(in reply to KenchiSulla)
Post #: 635
RE: Battle Stations! - 10/3/2010 11:18:54 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		Oct. 16, 1943

From all indications, the allied task forces spotted entering the Timor Sea yesterday were meant to deliver a large amount of supply and fuel to Darwin. They will probably still be able to deliver a significant amount, but a lot less than what they started with. They have also lost a good deal of their surface escorts:

Morning
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 8
Ki-49-IIa Helen x 31
Ki-49-IIb Helen x 13

Afternoon
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 30
G3M3 Nell x 18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japanese aircraft
Ki-49-IIa Helen x 9
Ki-49-IIb Helen x 12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 8
Ki-49-IIa Helen x 22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japanese aircraft
Ki-49-IIa Helen x 13

Ships [ships listed more than once were attacked in multiple raids]
CL Java, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CL Java, Bomb hits 3, and is sunk
CL Sumatra, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Stuart, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
DD La Triomphant
DD Rotherham
PG Herald, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage

xAK Bhima, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires
xAK Bhima, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Catrine, Bomb hits 1
xAK Catrine, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Vera, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
xAK Vera, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage

xAK La Cordillera, Bomb hits 1
xAK African Prince, Bomb hits 1, on fire
xAK Ettrickbank, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Indira, Bomb hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Stanmore, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
xAK Bengalen, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
xAK Risaldar, Bomb hits 2, on fire
xAK Cornish City, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Salween, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage

So, it does not appear as if an invasion is immanent. Nevertheless, I plan on getting some surface forces into position so as to try to finish off this convoy.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by cap_and_gown -- 10/4/2010 3:42:20 AM >

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 636
RE: Battle Stations! - 10/4/2010 1:59:57 AM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		Interesting results with the HELENS. You must have trained them all on LOW-N instead of NAV-B.

Are you concerned about the extreme flak at that altitude?

_____________________________


(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 637
RE: Battle Stations! - 10/4/2010 2:33:54 AM   
krupp_88mm


Posts: 406
Joined: 10/13/2008
Status: offline
quote:

Are you concerned about the extreme flak at that altitude?


i think the results speak for themselves.. haha

< Message edited by krupp_88mm -- 10/4/2010 2:34:42 AM >

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 638
RE: Battle Stations! - 10/4/2010 3:06:45 AM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: krupp_88mm

quote:

Are you concerned about the extreme flak at that altitude?


i think the results speak for themselves.. haha


I am going to agree with krupp. Besides, the Netties have it even worse: they have no armor and are flying in at 200 feet! That wouldn't stop me from using them, so why would it stop me from using armored Helen's at 1000 feet? A big part of my anti-invasion planning has been centered on using army bombers in large numbers to attack the invasion fleets. I have trained them on NavB, but I am not sure how much they can hit from 6000 feet. Watching the Dutch earlier in the game made it seem like bombing from 6000 feet might be kind of futile. So everyone gets trained in LowN. Basically, my training program for army bombers runs like this: Ground -> NavB -> LowN -> ASW. For each skill I aim for 60+ for the great majority of the pilots before moving on to training for the next skill.

(in reply to krupp_88mm)
Post #: 639
RE: Battle Stations! - 10/4/2010 10:26:07 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		Naval bombing from 6k feet and above (unless your planes are torpedo bombers) is basically praying to the random numbers gods to let you hit something. Which is often denied. Just recently I had 40 Netties with NavB in 60s-70s launch bomb attacks against an Allied invasion convoy in decent weather. They scored only a single hit. NavB is acceptable when you are using American bombers, that roll more attacks and are vastly more survivable against enemy fighters. Unless his opponent screws up, in 1943 and later, a Japanese player should expect to take huge losses when attacking enemy TFs. So it is important to make every plane that gets to see the enemy count.

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 640
RE: Battle Stations! - 10/6/2010 9:49:39 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		Oct. 17, 1943

Another allied sub sinks. Thought it might be mine, but when the turn was finished replaying I found that my crippled sub was still afloat. I decided to scuttle the cripple; it did not look like it was going to make it all the way home in the shape it is in.

Most of the survivors of the allied convoy heading to Darwin made good their escape, all except the DD Stewart which apparently had been slowed down by yesterday's damage and which succumbed to another 250kg bomb today.

The Tojo IIc was advanced to Nov. 1943! Finally, a somewhat decent plane. I am going to start pumping these out in large numbers in just 12 days. The R&D factories were switched over to other planes such as the Shinden, Ki-83 and Ki-84.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 641
RE: Battle Stations! - 10/7/2010 9:09:18 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		Oct. 19, 1943

Another allied sub, the SS Seal, sunk by my ASW AC. (running tally: 12 subs sunk by AC, 10 in last 4-5 weeks) Interestingly, my surface forces cannot equal the success of the air forces. I have numerous ASW TFs around Singapore playing cat and mouse with the Seawolf and the Tally-Ho, yet they can never seem to make contact no matter how much they chase.

An unescorted convoy traveling between Capetown and Geraldtown (at least that is what I am assuming their route was) was attacked by the I-170. Both the xAK Testbank and xAK Tweedbank were hit. The Tweedbank ate 2 torps and sank right away. I think the Testbank may have sunk as well, judging by the sinking sounds.

The allied convoy hit by out airforces the other day is now at Darwin unloading supplies. I rushed a cruiser force into position (unfortunately, I had to use full speed, meaning the sys/engine damage skyrocketed). They were spotted by allied search AC but not attacked. I have 250+ fighters set to LRCAP Moa where the cruisers are basing out of. The allies have 300+ AC at Darwin. I think most of them are fighters flown in specifically to provide CAP for this convoy. There may not be that many attack AC there.

The cruisers will rush into Darwin tonight and I hope they will find the allied supply tf. I set up the cruiser force as a bombardment force so they could use mission speed instead of full speed. This helps alot in reducing the amount of sys damage taken. OTOH, I am not sure if they will react in order to intercept the xAKs in case they should decide to high-tail it. I have two sets of Jakes set to night naval search. I am hoping they can find any allied TFs and cause the TF to react. But most likely the cruisers will just head in for a bombardment and ignore anybody not at Darwin. I have seen before where a TF can react out of hex in time to avoid an incoming enemy surface combat group.

If this group is not able to hit the supply convoy, I have another cruiser TF nearby that I will bring into action the following night.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 642
RE: Battle Stations! - 10/8/2010 12:38:02 AM   
aprezto


Posts: 824
Joined: 1/29/2009
Status: offline 		Hopefully you have enough fuel in those DDs and they don't stop within allied airpower range to refuel...

_____________________________



Image courtesy of Divepac

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 643
RE: Battle Stations! - 10/8/2010 4:21:10 AM   
crsutton


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

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown


quote:

ORIGINAL: krupp_88mm

quote:

Are you concerned about the extreme flak at that altitude?


i think the results speak for themselves.. haha


I am going to agree with krupp. Besides, the Netties have it even worse: they have no armor and are flying in at 200 feet! That wouldn't stop me from using them, so why would it stop me from using armored Helen's at 1000 feet? A big part of my anti-invasion planning has been centered on using army bombers in large numbers to attack the invasion fleets. I have trained them on NavB, but I am not sure how much they can hit from 6000 feet. Watching the Dutch earlier in the game made it seem like bombing from 6000 feet might be kind of futile. So everyone gets trained in LowN. Basically, my training program for army bombers runs like this: Ground -> NavB -> LowN -> ASW. For each skill I aim for 60+ for the great majority of the pilots before moving on to training for the next skill.



Only draw back is that they (level bombers) only carry a half bomb load below 6,000 feet. However, if trained up I find that the increased accuracy makes up for fewer bombs.



_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 644
RE: Battle Stations! - 10/8/2010 5:52:37 AM   
PaxMondo


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

ORIGINAL: crsutton



Only draw back is that they (level bombers) only carry a half bomb load below 6,000 feet. However, if trained up I find that the increased accuracy makes up for fewer bombs.



Really? Where/When did I miss this? Dang, gotta pull out the manual again .....

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 645
Ruh Roh - 10/8/2010 6:46:41 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		Oct. 20, 1943

As I feared, the allied supply convoy at Darwin high-tailed it before I could strike. As a result, our cruiser TF only managed to sink a PT and destroy a couple of Spitfires based at Darwin's airbase. Another TF is moving into place in case those xAKs should come back. This time I am keeping the TF really small so it will be harder to spot: 1 CL and 2 DD.

One of our ASW TFs near Singapore finally caught up with the Seawolf and got one solid hit on it and 3 damaging near misses. The Seawolf is now retreating down the Java Sea (it is listed as sunk, which is obviously FOW) and our ASW TFs are in hot pursuit.

Up around Hokaido the Greenling found a TK convoy moving oil from Sakhalin to Honshu. The escorts sighted the sub and were able to hit it with two very solid blows and a couple of damaging near misses. So far so good, but then the sub was forced to surface. Ruh Roh!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine attack near Wakkanai at 123,48

Japanese Ships
SC CHa-25
TK Noshiro Maru
PB Kyo Maru #11
PB Choyo Maru #2, Shell hits 1
PB Choun Maru #18, Shell hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
PB Bisan Maru #3
TK Teikai Maru, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage

Allied Ships
SS Greenling, hits 9, heavy damage

Never approach a wounded sub, they are vicious! Both the PB and TK were lost.

Finally, the SS Stealhead found a convoy of AKs north of Hollandia and put two torps into one. I scuttled her. There is large contingent of allied subs north of New Guinea. The allies have been bombing the airbases there. Perhaps the reason they are bombing those bases is to keep my P-3 Orions from being based there.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by cap_and_gown -- 10/8/2010 6:49:33 PM >

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 646
Those of us about to die salute you - 10/9/2010 8:13:56 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		Oct. 22, 1943, Part I

Here it comes. The allies are moving on Ponape. I am assuming this is an invasion, even though I have not spotted the amphibious TFs. I suppose it could be a carrier raid meant to sink some TFs at Truk, but I doubt it. Either way, this is the moment I have been waiting for. The KB will move to engage!

The KB consists of 5 Air Combat TFs and 1 Surface Combat TF which the ACTFs follow. Overall, the KB has 15 CV, 6 CVL, 6 CVE, 1 CS, 4 CLAA/CL, 4 BB (Kongo's), and ~55 DD. Generally, each TF has about 15 ships and each ACTF has 280-300 AC. Overall, there are 550 Fighters (almost all A6M5, with the exception of 3 groups of A6M5c, 1 group of A6M5b, and 3 groups of A6M3a [on the CVEs]), 450 Judy's (most D4Y1, but with one group of D4Y3), and 350 Jill's (mostly B6N2).

In observing allied behaviour during invasions of Enewetok and Kusaie, I am going to gamble that I can guess where the allied CVs will be tomorrow. I am going to place the KB 8 hexes from the expected position of the allied CVs. If I am right, then the KB will be able to strike at the allied CVs without suffering a return strike. If the allies are 9 hexes away, then nothing will happen except that I will lose some sacrificial ships. If they are only 7 hexes away, then we will have an all out CV duel.

My planning has focusing on getting my naval strikes through the allied CAP. This has entailed multiple different components. First, Jakes have been doing night naval searches. Some Nells have also be set to night naval attack in the past. This is to encourage the allies to divert at least one of the fighter squadrons to night CAP duties. Another element of my plans for reducing the CAP is to provide some targets for the allied CVs to strike. To this end, two TFs consisting of SCs and xAKLs have been sent out to attract a strike. Hopefully, any strike on these TFs will be accompanied by some escorting fighters which will naturally not be able to fly CAP. For the KB itself, my fighter squadrons have been set to just 30% CAP. This will mean a large contingent of fighters will be available to escort my strikes. To make up for some of the CAP that this will cost me, 150 fighters based at Truk will provide LRCAP over the KB; call it an increment of 50 fighters at any one time. Another piece of planning has involved increasing the effectiveness of both escorts and CAP. I am using both multi-level strikes and multi-level CAP. Most CAP/escorts are set to 25k feet (HR limit), but one squadron from each TF is set to 10k feet to provide for a split CAP and to go after low flying bombers. My strike AC are also split up, with most Jill's flying at 6k feet, all Judy's flying at 10k feet, and one contingent of Jill's from each TF flying at 16k feet.

This situation is not ideal since the increment of LBA support is limited to one base (Truk). Nevertheless, if I can pull off a one-sided strike, we have the potential for achieving a great victory.

In addition to the air action, I am moving a TF of cruisers into place to hit the allied invasion forces the day after tomorrow.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by cap_and_gown -- 10/9/2010 8:21:36 PM >

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 647
RE: Those of us about to die salute you - 10/9/2010 8:19:27 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		Oct. 22, 1943, Part II

Meanwhile, the supply convoy that I tried to intercept at Darwin two turns ago is back. Unfortunately, my surface action group was spotted. Thus, I believe there is a good chance that the convoy may retreat again and escape my grasp. Because of this, instead of ordering a bombardment of Darwin, I have ordered a high speed dash to the hex where I believe the convoy may retire and have set reaction to 3. I also have the 2 Jakes on the Oyoda set to night search. This may turn up nothing, OTOH, we could see a nice open sea battle (slaughter!).




Attachment (1)

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 648
RE: Those of us about to die salute you - 10/9/2010 10:08:27 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
15 CV? ... ? ...   ?? ... ???  ...   ??????  What CVs are with your KB now?

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 649
RE: Those of us about to die salute you - 10/9/2010 10:29:30 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: janh


15 CV? ... ? ...   ?? ... ???  ...   ??????  What CVs are with your KB now?



6 Pearl Harbor
6 Unryu
Taiho
Junyo, Hiyo

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 650
RE: Those of us about to die salute you - 10/9/2010 10:36:12 PM   
veji1

 

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline 		can't wait to see the result... I accused you of being too timid last time, but if you score big this time, i'll happily eat some humble pie.

_____________________________

Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 651
RE: Those of us about to die salute you - 10/9/2010 11:47:24 PM   
krupp_88mm


Posts: 406
Joined: 10/13/2008
Status: offline 		just curious how you know hes going to be on the forward side of the island, isnt he more likely to make base on the opposite side of the island? wouldnt it be safer that way since hes farther from truck and closer to friendly air support, unless hes going to invade truk, why dont you wear down his cap first this time since you have transports available to cap, how many carriers do you estimate he has? this could be the biggest carrier battle ive ever seen! GL

< Message edited by krupp_88mm -- 10/9/2010 11:52:30 PM >

(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 652
RE: Those of us about to die salute you - 10/10/2010 12:55:08 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline 		Wow.  Really waiting to see this one.  Got my seat and beverage.  Let's GO!!!! 

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to krupp_88mm)
Post #: 653
past performance no guarantee of future success - 10/10/2010 2:08:23 AM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		Oct. 23, 1943

One right guess, one wrong. The right guess resulted in the slaughter of the supply convoy unloading fuel at Darwin. Most of these xAKs went up like torches from their fuel cargo:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Darwin at 73,125, Range 10,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CL Oyodo
DD Shimozuki
DD Hayashimo

Allied Ships
DD Rotherham, Shell hits 2
xAK Edward Luckenbach, Shell hits 3
xAK Caithness, Shell hits 1
xAK El Madina, Shell hits 4, on fire
xAK Itola, Shell hits 2
xAK Jalayamuna, Shell hits 8, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Elmdale, Shell hits 5, heavy fires
xAK Lulworth Hill, Shell hits 3, heavy fires
xAK Umtali, Shell hits 1
xAK Alphard, Shell hits 11, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Toendjoek, Shell hits 3, heavy fires
xAK Tarifa, Shell hits 13, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD La Triomphant, Shell hits 11, on fire

As to Ponape, I guessed wrong about where the allied CVs would end up. So no attacks today. The allies launched an attack against one of my sacrificial TFs. Interestingly, 6 Hellcats were ops losses today. I suspect their fatigue is rather high. They have not had a rest since the beginning of September.

Now I have to decide how to approach this situation. I have not made up my mind yet. I am considering a surface engagement with both cruisers and battleships. I am still looking for a way to arrange a one-way strike. Surprisingly, the KB was not spotted! So its position is still a secret and I can still take advantage of the element of surprise. I am thinking about an approach that will allow me to at least attack the forces invading Ponape, if nothing else. I will have to mull this over.

The Seawolf continues to evade my surface forces. It has made it to the eastern end of the Java Sea now. My ASW forces will continue their pursuit!

It is amazing how all the allied subs disappeared after I moved my ASW Helen unit off of Truk to make way for more fighters. Naval Search is obviously not nearly as effective at spotting subs.

I will update this later after thinking about what to do about Ponape.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 654
RE: past performance no guarantee of future success - 10/10/2010 3:22:09 AM   
krupp_88mm


Posts: 406
Joined: 10/13/2008
Status: offline 		why not just move 2 hexs forward if u can do that you may strike his carriers with no retaliation, and send in the surface fleets too just in case hes in range it may distract strikes and finish of some cripples go for the jugular

also its worth noting if next turn hes invading he may have some fighters on striking the island or sweeping it

< Message edited by krupp_88mm -- 10/10/2010 12:17:45 PM >

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 655
RE: past performance no guarantee of future success - 10/10/2010 3:33:40 AM   
cookie monster


Posts: 1693
Joined: 5/22/2005
From: Birmingham,England
Status: offline 		Excellent AAR good use of pictures and reporting.

I like your style.

(in reply to krupp_88mm)
Post #: 656
RE: past performance no guarantee of future success - 10/10/2010 9:55:27 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		I would send battleships to engage. If nothing else, they might draw some airstrikes to themselves. And if you're lucky, they might score against enemy carriers. This is the Decisive Battle (tm) Japanese navy dreamed about, and circumstances probably are as good as they will ever get, so don't hold anything back. Send all available subs right in the likely combat zone as well.

< Message edited by FatR -- 10/10/2010 10:00:12 AM >

(in reply to cookie monster)
Post #: 657
RE: past performance no guarantee of future success - 10/10/2010 7:05:22 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		Decisions, decisions.

I decided to go ahead and try for a surface engagement. The negatives to this are the lack of moonlight (17%) and lousy weather forecast. This may give the allies an advantage with their radar. All my destroyers involved have radar (7 DD escort the 4 Kongo's, and 4 E and 3 DD escort the cruisers) but the capital ships do not. I have yet to see Japanese surface radar find anybody, although I have seen it in other AARs. I hope that surface search radar did not get broken along with land based radar. Another factor that could be either and advantage or disadvantage is that whatever fight occurs is going to be at very close range. This could be a plus for my cruiser force if they run into allied BBs since they may be able to put a torpedo into one. OTOH, my own BBs will be vulnerable to the same treatment. Another negative is that we will probably be out numbered.

Hard to say how the surface engagement will turn out. I am also unsure how this will impact the invasion. Will allied troops be able to start unloading? Or will they be forced back out of the hex?

More importantly, what will the allied CVs do? I don't really know. What I decided to do is leave the KB right where it is. If the allied CVs move into range, that will be fantastic. If not, then I will have the option of moving into range next turn. Another reason to hold position was to provide cover for the surface action groups retiring from Ponape. I gave both groups a home port of Truk, so they should either make it back to Truk (10 hexes from Ponape) or the hex where the KB is. Either way they will have air cover.

I also moved in another squadron of fighters to provide LRCAP over the KB and moved out the Francis squadron to make room for the new arrivals. 190+ fighters will now be on LRCAP over the KB at a 60% level. Call it 50-60 fighters.

I know everyone wants to see lots of blood. I just want to make sure most of it is the other guy's.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 658
RE: past performance no guarantee of future success - 10/10/2010 7:17:15 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		A note on allied CV set up:

By my count, the allied OOB includes 10 CV, 2 CVL, and 9-11 CVE. Some of the CVE are probably being used as replenishment carriers. At least 4 CVE can be expected to accompany the invasion forces. The allied Fleet CVs seem to be broken up into 3 TFs with 3 CV and 1 CVL in two TFs and 4 CV in the third. The allies also seem to have a battleship and a cruiser TF providing cover for the CVs, plus another surface group to provide cover for the invasion forces.

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 659
RE: past performance no guarantee of future success - 10/10/2010 7:23:27 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Nice work, there's some good planning going on here. If I were you I would seek to do just what you're doing. Surface COmbat TFs into Ponape to intercept and disrupt his amphibious TFs ( possibly driving some out into open waters where your strike groups can get at them without CAP interfering ) while your CVs hover just outside of range of his CVs and try to strike at the forces in Ponape hex and neighbouring hexes ( where they might get scattered ). Be sure to leave enough surface combat ships for a 2nd SC TF tomorrow night though. If you disrupt him he'll have to come back tomorrow and that'll pay even more dividends.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 660
Page:   <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: I hate subs Page: <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   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

2.906