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: Allied TF Behaviour

 
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: Allied TF Behaviour Page: <<   < prev  181 182 [183] 184 185   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/5/2011 11:50:57 PM   
Cap Mandrake


Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		If we are lucky, we might have 2 carriers that can conduct flight ops. Formidable has got to be in bad shape as she already had 26% flood damage from the day before.

We need to beat feet and save what we can. All the troops are ashore and might even have enough to take PH but we will likely face 2 Jap carriers in decent shape.

Yorkotwn and Illustrious can make for Carnavon with it's 100 fighters.

(in reply to sprior)
Post #: 5461
RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/5/2011 11:52:17 PM   
Cap Mandrake


Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		Merely a flesh wound.

(in reply to sprior)
Post #: 5462
RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/6/2011 1:58:57 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline 		You'll call it a draw?

_____________________________


(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 5463
RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/6/2011 7:45:05 AM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

The "102nd Combat Engineer Regiment" is making a pest of itself at Port Headland.

In an effort to find some historical context, I did some research. I can't find such a unit. There was a "102nd Engineer Bn" which was attached to 27th ID and did serve in the PTO.

I think they are a little too big for their britches.


Some research indicates that the 102nd Engineer Battalion, (Combat), was a New York National Guard unit attached to, as you indicate, the 27th Infantry Division. The 27th Infantry Division was made up exclusively of New York National Guard units and found itself at the beginning of the war at Fort McClellen, Anniston, Alabama.

Does this qualify as an OOB query?

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 5464
RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/6/2011 1:34:16 PM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline 		Tell me, what altitude are you setting your CAP at?

I'd have one squadron at 5,000', one at 10,000' and one at 15,000'.

Players tend to be lazy at times and place all their CAP at the same altitude (e.g. 15,000'). A clever Japanese player then sends in a low-level Betty/Kate strike and despite there being massive CAP, a lot get through to score hits.

With Vals at least you know they pretty much will come in at around 10,000' in order to dive bomb, so if up against Vals only, put all your CAP at that level.

What altitude did those Kate strikes come in at?

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 5465
RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/6/2011 1:43:23 PM   
Cap Mandrake


Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

The "102nd Combat Engineer Regiment" is making a pest of itself at Port Headland.

In an effort to find some historical context, I did some research. I can't find such a unit. There was a "102nd Engineer Bn" which was attached to 27th ID and did serve in the PTO.

I think they are a little too big for their britches.


Some research indicates that the 102nd Engineer Battalion, (Combat), was a New York National Guard unit attached to, as you indicate, the 27th Infantry Division. The 27th Infantry Division was made up exclusively of New York National Guard units and found itself at the beginning of the war at Fort McClellen, Anniston, Alabama.

Does this qualify as an OOB query?


I think it really should be 102nd Engineer Bn. As 27th ID comes in by regiment, I think it is reasonable to have 102nd Engineer as a separate unit, but you do wonder if it should be part fo the build for 27th ID.

One thing for sure. Somebody in the unit is a hoarder.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to CT Grognard)
Post #: 5466
RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/6/2011 1:46:45 PM   
Cap Mandrake


Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		102nd will NOT be invited on any other attacks should they survive this. They have cost us at least 3 d of unloading, including at least 2 with all the combat troops ashore because they have taken all the field kitchens for the entire force.

102nd Engineer has over 10x the supply allocation of the entire 32nd ID.

In those two days, Formidable was damaged in a DD attack and then there was last turn. It is just maddening. We will now have to retreat and hope we can come back later and save 32nd ID and 2nd Div.

< Message edited by Cap Mandrake -- 10/6/2011 1:49:29 PM >

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 5467
RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/6/2011 1:53:38 PM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline 		That is bizarre.

Do you think it might have anything to do with the HQ it's attached to?

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 5468
RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/6/2011 1:56:07 PM   
Cap Mandrake


Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		Here is 102nd Engineer

1200 men, 7 bulldozers

sounds like a Bn to me.

CO is Lt. Col Nathaniel "Net" Wirth of the Hudson Valley....you know right near the Rossevelt's place.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 5469
RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/6/2011 2:02:55 PM   
sprior


Posts: 8596
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Portsmouth, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

That is bizarre.

Do you think it might have anything to do with the HQ it's attached to?


No, it's because they're gits.

_____________________________

"Grown ups are what's left when skool is finished."
"History started badly and hav been geting steadily worse."
- Nigel Molesworth.



(in reply to CT Grognard)
Post #: 5470
RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/6/2011 2:04:07 PM   
Cap Mandrake


Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

That is bizarre.

Do you think it might have anything to do with the HQ it's attached to?


That is possible but, East Africa Brigade is also attached to a high order HQ.

It also seems odd that an engineer bn has 1/6 the assault power of the entire 32nd ID.

I am thinking there is a bad number somewhere.

(in reply to CT Grognard)
Post #: 5471
RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/6/2011 2:07:14 PM   
Cap Mandrake


Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		Here is another observation. Those annoying little yellow baaaaahsterds don't give up.

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 5472
RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/6/2011 2:23:49 PM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline 		The 102nd Engineer Battalion (Combat) apparently had at the time the war started a Major Harold Finn Gormsen as its commander, who had seen service during World War I (being awarded the WWI British War Medal).

He ended the Second World War as a Lieutenant Colonel and was awarded the Bronze Star with Oak Leaf Cluster (his first Bronze Star was won at Saipan and his second at Peleliu).

The 102nd Combat Engineers was a very old New York National Guard unit that was formed before World War I.

They were very involved in the Central Pacific, being present at Saipan, Peleliu, and Okinawa.

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 5473
RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/6/2011 2:25:38 PM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline 		Assault value looks right - each of those Combat Engineer Squads and MMG Sections are worth 1 AV each.

If the 32nd Infantry Division only has around 200 AV, it must be seriously understrength/undersupplied.

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 5474
RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/6/2011 2:26:48 PM   
Cap Mandrake


Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

Tell me, what altitude are you setting your CAP at?

I'd have one squadron at 5,000', one at 10,000' and one at 15,000'.

Players tend to be lazy at times and place all their CAP at the same altitude (e.g. 15,000'). A clever Japanese player then sends in a low-level Betty/Kate strike and despite there being massive CAP, a lot get through to score hits.

With Vals at least you know they pretty much will come in at around 10,000' in order to dive bomb, so if up against Vals only, put all your CAP at that level.

What altitude did those Kate strikes come in at?


Here is more detail on the morning strike.

39 Zero
27 Vals
25 Kate approach at 15000 ft

20 Kates and 14 Vals get through the CAP...so it looks like the F4F's downed 18 bombers and 3 Zeroes, not bad considering their raid had 39 Zeroes in escort.

There is this ray of hope. The Vals are dropping 60kg bombs!!! Most of the Kates had 250kg bombs at 9000 ft. I thik I know why we had no fires reported after the first attack.


Morning Air attack on TF, near Port Hedland at 58,128

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 51 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 39
B5N2 Kate x 37
D3A1 Val x 25



Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 61


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 3 destroyed
B5N2 Kate: 13 destroyed, 4 damaged
D3A1 Val: 12 destroyed, 5 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 3 destroyed

Allied Ships
CV Illustrious, Bomb hits 3
CV Formidable, Bomb hits 6, Torpedo hits 1
CA Pensacola
CV Yorktown



Aircraft Attacking:
12 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
4 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
4 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
6 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000' *
Naval Attack: 2 x 60 kg GP Bomb
8 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000' *
Naval Attack: 2 x 60 kg GP Bomb


< Message edited by Cap Mandrake -- 10/6/2011 2:30:07 PM >

(in reply to CT Grognard)
Post #: 5475
RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/6/2011 2:31:04 PM   
USSAmerica


Posts: 18715
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Graham, NC, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sprior


quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

That is bizarre.

Do you think it might have anything to do with the HQ it's attached to?


No, it's because they're gits.


What version are you guys playing with? I'm pretty sure this is a bug that Michael M has fixed in one of the beta builds. One LCU would hoard all the unloaded supply during amphib landings.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to sprior)
Post #: 5476
RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/6/2011 2:32:48 PM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline 		They are striking you at extended distance then - probably 8 or 9 hexes away. The Zero escorts will be using drop tanks.

Aside from the 25 bombers you shot down, expect them to probably lose another 10-15 Kates and Vals on ops losses.

Your opponent must be running very low on experienced pilots.


(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 5477
RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/6/2011 2:35:34 PM   
Erkki


Posts: 1461
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

They are striking you at extended distance then - probably 8 or 9 hexes away. The Zero escorts will be using drop tanks.

Aside from the 25 bombers you shot down, expect them to probably lose another 10-15 Kates and Vals on ops losses.

Your opponent must be running very low on experienced pilots.




7 hex range. D3A1 wont fly further, also 7 is the only range it carries 60kg bombs, and Japanese CVs launch strikes only to 8(Allied to 7).

_____________________________


(in reply to CT Grognard)
Post #: 5478
RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/6/2011 2:37:10 PM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline 		I stand corrected, and defer to your more accurate knowledge.

(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 5479
RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/6/2011 3:14:23 PM   
Cap Mandrake


Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		Don't have the turn yet, but, yes, I think they tried to finesse us on the 8/7 range advantage based on our previous carrier postion, but <Chico voice> "we trick them...we no show up".

One of their carriers is burning. Most likely some of their planes had to ditch or divert to Broome or PH where they won't be of much use and they have suffered losses to the bomber groups. It is possible they will have to pull back their carriers for fine tuning. Also odd is the fact that so many of the Kates were using bombs. This may be a pilot skill issue or one or more carriers may be out of torps.

Of course, we can't stand at PH now either. We will need to get out what we can and repair Wasp and Yorktown. We can disembark Aus I Corps and rest them. They might even be needed for PH.

(in reply to CT Grognard)
Post #: 5480
RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/6/2011 3:14:55 PM   
Cap Mandrake


Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America


quote:

ORIGINAL: sprior


quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

That is bizarre.

Do you think it might have anything to do with the HQ it's attached to?


No, it's because they're gits.


What version are you guys playing with? I'm pretty sure this is a bug that Michael M has fixed in one of the beta builds. One LCU would hoard all the unloaded supply during amphib landings.


D'oh!

(in reply to USSAmerica)
Post #: 5481
RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/6/2011 3:15:16 PM   
sprior


Posts: 8596
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Portsmouth, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America


quote:

ORIGINAL: sprior


quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

That is bizarre.

Do you think it might have anything to do with the HQ it's attached to?


No, it's because they're gits.


What version are you guys playing with? I'm pretty sure this is a bug that Michael M has fixed in one of the beta builds. One LCU would hoard all the unloaded supply during amphib landings.


We're playing the last vanilla patch. There's a rumour we're going to patch up to the latest beta.

_____________________________

"Grown ups are what's left when skool is finished."
"History started badly and hav been geting steadily worse."
- Nigel Molesworth.



(in reply to USSAmerica)
Post #: 5482
RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/6/2011 3:24:16 PM   
Cap Mandrake


Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sprior


quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

That is bizarre.

Do you think it might have anything to do with the HQ it's attached to?


No, it's because they're gits.


Is "gits" a four letter word?

(in reply to sprior)
Post #: 5483
RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/6/2011 3:38:08 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: sprior

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

quote:

ORIGINAL: sprior

quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

That is bizarre.

Do you think it might have anything to do with the HQ it's attached to?


No, it's because they're gits.


What version are you guys playing with? I'm pretty sure this is a bug that Michael M has fixed in one of the beta builds. One LCU would hoard all the unloaded supply during amphib landings.


We're playing the last vanilla patch. There's a rumour we're going to patch up to the latest beta.


Yeah he fixed that one, and made tons of other fixes and improvements. Get thee to the latest Beta!!!

(in reply to sprior)
Post #: 5484
RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/6/2011 3:56:11 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

That is bizarre.

Do you think it might have anything to do with the HQ it's attached to?


That is possible but, East Africa Brigade is also attached to a high order HQ.

It also seems odd that an engineer bn has 1/6 the assault power of the entire 32nd ID.

I am thinking there is a bad number somewhere.

Well, once you capture Port Hedland....erm...if you capture Port Hedland, all units should dump their excess into the town hex, no?

Oh. Since you have the turn back, how's Royal Sovereign looking? Rather in a permanently moistened state, I'd imagine?

_____________________________


(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 5485
RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/6/2011 3:58:40 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

quote:

ORIGINAL: sprior


quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

That is bizarre.

Do you think it might have anything to do with the HQ it's attached to?


No, it's because they're gits.


Is "gits" a four letter word?

Yes, so it's rude to use. I prefer to use the three letter word, mass applied. That's not a four letter word and, therefore, quite suitable for mixed company.

Try this instead: "The commander of the 102nd Engineer Regiment is a git and so are all the other officers of this unit."


_____________________________


(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 5486
RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/6/2011 4:00:10 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sprior

We're playing the last vanilla patch.



Is this patch of vanilla on Ceylon? I think they grow a fair amount of it there.

_____________________________


(in reply to sprior)
Post #: 5487
RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/6/2011 4:03:23 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake
one or more carriers may be out of torps.

+1. The Jap carriers only have sufficient torps for 1.5 days of AM/PM torpedo runs.

_____________________________


(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 5488
RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/6/2011 4:07:05 PM   
Cap Mandrake


Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		I'll take one Beta Patch with a side of cheesey-hammy eggs.

In 3 days, RS had pumped out the after junior officer gym and grog room and was down to 92% flooding. Sadly, although the Coastal Commission was inclined to grant the museum and coastal battery license to RS, they were enjoined at the last minute by Friends of the Salwater Crocodile Society.

There is now a counter-proposal by Minderbinder/Cousteau, LLC

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 5489
RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/6/2011 4:08:54 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: sprior

We're playing the last vanilla patch.



Is this patch of vanilla on Ceylon? I think they grow a fair amount of it there.


No, poultry-brain, that means he's wearing a patch to quit his vanilla habit. Do I have to explain everything to you?

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 5490
Page:   <<   < prev  181 182 [183] 184 185   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Allied TF Behaviour Page: <<   < prev  181 182 [183] 184 185   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

0.656