RE: Allied TF Behaviour

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 186 187 [188] 189 190 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/19/2011 6:56:20 PM

Argos

Posts: 130
Joined: 11/1/2010
From: Bozeman, MT
Status: offline

Sorry to be dense Mister Sprior Sir, but were you answering the scooter question or the ointment question?

< Message edited by Argos -- 10/19/2011 6:59:20 PM >

(in reply to sprior)

Post #: 5611

RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/19/2011 7:50:58 PM

zuluhour

Posts: 5244
Joined: 1/20/2011
From: Maryland
Status: offline

Thanks L. Sprior.

(in reply to Argos)

Post #: 5612

RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/19/2011 8:15:22 PM

Cap Mandrake

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

The "ointment" shouldn't be an ointment but should instead be water based and it shouldn't have any extract of Serrano peppers either....even if this was a really good year.

Nor will there be any stories of non-ficitional employers asking non-fictional (or even partly fictional) employees what kind of ointment to use because this story of WWII(c) is know to be frequented by junior partners of D,C&H Employment Practices Division trolling for cases.

(in reply to Argos)

Post #: 5613

RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/19/2011 8:43:43 PM

Cap Mandrake

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

****************October 19, 1942*************

An impudent wee jap dobber DD bombarded Exmouth destroying a didgereedoo cutural display and severely angering an 18 foot saltie.

Yorktown should be 21 days out from a new spit shine. Wasp and Illustrious will be ready before that. The WJD CV's have disappeared for 2 d.

Ground bombardment at PH results in equal disruption to both sides. Clearly, we aren't ready for an attack yet, but at least we hit something. PH airfield was hit by the 17's and the ground troops chiefly by the mediums. More bombing and mayhem to come. Broome and Wydham appear shut down for now.

Air support troops landing at Meruake today wtihout a Jap air attack....that is good.

< Message edited by Cap Mandrake -- 10/19/2011 8:46:39 PM >

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)

Post #: 5614

RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/19/2011 9:48:20 PM

zuluhour

Posts: 5244
Joined: 1/20/2011
From: Maryland
Status: offline

I doubt DC&H would dare to bring a case against Lord Hill and Adm Marx. OOPs wrong thread.

curious here, have you guys lost any oilers? you seem able to support large Tfs off Western Oz. I dont seem to have enough of them for two fronts.

< Message edited by zuluhour -- 10/21/2011 3:10:20 PM >

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)

Post #: 5615

RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/21/2011 9:46:55 PM

Cap Mandrake

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

*****************October 20, 1942****************

Oz: JJ was spotted trying to run in transports at PH. We started a surface group to head up around the corner from Geraldton and set most of the mediums at Meekathara to naval attack. Surprisingly, they are landing without apparent protection from a surface group and the carriers were not spotted either. Neither is there any Jap air at PH.

When the sun came up the airfield was hit again and the most well trained groups went after the transports, getting two bomb hits. These are laden transports, apparently transporting troops of Jap 5th Div. If there was any doubt they mean to fight it is now gone. We shall see if our surface group got cold feet or even if they are unspotted. If not, there may be an opportunity for an intercept.

(in reply to Argos)

Post #: 5616

RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/21/2011 10:13:48 PM

Cap Mandrake

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

Here is the group landing troops at PH. This seems big enough to be the whole 5th Div. That seems a Hell of a risk to sail in there with no surface group.

It does make one wonder if it an elaborate bait.

Allied aircraft
B-25C Mitchell x 11
B-17F Fortress x 9
B-25C Mitchell x 6
B-26 Marauder x 6
B-26B Marauder x 6
P-38F Lightning x 14

Allied aircraft losses
B-17F Fortress: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
xAP Miike Maru
xAP Buenos Aires Maru
xAK Tazan Maru
xAK Nako Maru
xAK Tamaki Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
xAK Hokuzyu Maru
APD Nadakaze
xAP Kamakura Maru
xAK Yamayuri Maru
xAK Hakodate Maru, Bomb hits 1
xAK Erie Maru

Japanese ground losses:
50 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 9 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

(in reply to Argos)

Post #: 5617

RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/24/2011 2:48:03 PM

Cap Mandrake

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

*************October 21, 1942**************

Oz: WJD 5th Division was not disuaded from unloading at PH by some B-26's and B-25's so Admiral Lord Sprior sent in the Dreadnaught class HMS Decoy which had been on sentry duty at Exmouth.

Night Time Surface Combat, near Port Hedland at 57,129, Range 12,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
APD Nadakaze
DMS W-5
DMS W-6
xAK Nako Maru
xAK Asuka Maru
xAK Erie Maru
xAK Tazan Maru, Shell hits 6, heavy fires
xAK Yamayuri Maru
xAK Ada Maru, Shell hits 3, on fire
xAK Hakodate Maru
xAK Hokuzyu Maru
xAK Seizan Maru, Shell hits 1
xAK Tamaki Maru, heavy fires
xAK Hokuriku Maru
xAP Kamakura Maru, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
xAP Miike Maru
xAP Buenos Aires Maru
xAP Montevideo Maru

Allied Ships
DD Decoy

Japanese ground losses:
216 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 17 destroyed, 7 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

There were no bomber attacks either owing to weather or retreat of the Jap troopships (or both). If they send them back tonight there weill be heavier Allied SCTF's

< Message edited by Cap Mandrake -- 10/24/2011 2:51:40 PM >

(in reply to Argos)

Post #: 5618

RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/24/2011 2:52:48 PM

Chickenboy

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

Looks like it worked out well for the LYBs reinforcement schedule. All told, they only had some 250 casualties whilest disembarking the bulk of a 13,000-strong division over those two days. You're going to have to hit them harder than that to make an impression, Cap'n.

_____________________________

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)

Post #: 5619

RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/24/2011 3:02:49 PM

Cap Mandrake

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

We have Repulse and North Carolina in one force on their way and South Dakota and a CL one day behind.

Also a force of one USN CL and 4 DD's should be in the area. We may not need the heavies.

The appearance of at least parts of 5th JJ Div at PH raises the issue of more Allied firepower to defeat them. SWPAC is tapped out except for Aus I Corps which had been previously prepped for Broome. I could lend Admiral Lord Sprior some Marines from SouPac so that I Corps could be ready to exploit at Broome.

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)

Post #: 5620

RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/24/2011 3:26:17 PM

Cap Mandrake

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Looks like it worked out well for the LYBs reinforcement schedule. All told, they only had some 250 casualties whilest disembarking the bulk of a 13,000-strong division over those two days. You're going to have to hit them harder than that to make an impression, Cap'n.

Alas, you are probably right. I just checked the SWPAC-RECON BY BOMBARDMENT REPORT. It seems 5th Div HQ is already ashore.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 5621

RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/24/2011 3:28:22 PM

witpqs

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

Think of the trouble they are going to have extricating that unit for duty elsewhere!

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)

Post #: 5622

RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/24/2011 3:32:59 PM

Cap Mandrake

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

Unadjusted JJ assault strength at PH is now 952. Nearly 30K WJD. We are going to need another division. 20 days until Yorktown is ready. We will need to keep Broome and PH airfields down and attrit his gound forces there. Note also their conterbattery fire is still strong (altough AAA is waaay down)

Ground combat at Port Hedland (57,129)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 20150 troops, 593 guns, 399 vehicles, Assault Value = 641

Defending force 29114 troops, 244 guns, 178 vehicles, Assault Value = 953

Japanese ground losses:
11 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
56 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 7 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Assaulting units:
32nd Infantry Division
102nd Combat Engineer Regiment
22nd (East African) Brigade
2nd British Division
34th Aviation Base Force
7th RAN Base Force
14th USN Naval Construction Battalion
10th USN Naval Construction Battalion
2nd Medium Regiment

Defending units:
56th Recon Regiment
56th Engineer Regiment
4th Ind. Engineer Regiment
65th Brigade
5th Division
4th Infantry Regiment
9th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
9th Field AF Construction Battalion
30th Fld AA Gun Co
22nd Air Flotilla
2nd Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
51st JNAF AF Unit

(in reply to Argos)

Post #: 5623

RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/24/2011 3:43:24 PM

Cap Mandrake

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

Interestingly, Br 18th Div just reached Daly Waters and is opposed by JJ 20th Div. Supply seems to be reaching 18th Div. Beauforts from Tennant Creek attacked JJ 20th Div today. There may be an opportunity for attack there.

The landing at Maraueke goes well. CB's landing today. 50 P-40E's flying CAP.

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)

Post #: 5624

RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/24/2011 3:44:59 PM

Cap Mandrake

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

You know something? There are a LOT of WJD ground troops in this scenario.

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)

Post #: 5625

RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/24/2011 3:49:12 PM

Cap Mandrake

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Think of the trouble they are going to have extricating that unit for duty elsewhere!

Yes, yes, they are being lured deeper into the trap.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 5626

RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/24/2011 6:08:05 PM

Wirraway_Ace

Posts: 1400
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: Austin / Brisbane
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

You know something? There are a LOT of WJD ground troops in this scenario.

Very true; however, I do not believe scenario 2 gives the japanese squads and the divisional AT any increase in "anti-hard" (I am not making this up) values which makes them susceptible on the defense to massed Allied armor. Remember Slim's philosophy on the use of tanks: "the more you use the less you lose".

Mike

p.s. this only works when the Japanese are on the defense. Allied armor can be nicely chewed up when not supported by enough infantry to deter a Japanese attack.

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)

Post #: 5627

RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/24/2011 6:43:38 PM

witpqs

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

Remember too, Mandrake that troops on the receiving end of bombardments gain experience...

(in reply to Wirraway_Ace)

Post #: 5628

RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/24/2011 6:59:37 PM

Cap Mandrake

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Remember too, Mandrake that troops on the receiving end of bombardments gain experience...

That is the thing about remembering. One has to first know the thing to be remembered.

We should probably stop bombarding at PH...especially as the counterbattery fire is quite strong.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 5629

RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/24/2011 7:13:37 PM

Cap Mandrake

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

You know something? There are a LOT of WJD ground troops in this scenario.

Very true; however, I do not believe scenario 2 gives the japanese squads and the divisional AT any increase in "anti-hard" (I am not making this up) values which makes them susceptible on the defense to massed Allied armor. Remember Slim's philosophy on the use of tanks: "the more you use the less you lose".

Mike

p.s. this only works when the Japanese are on the defense. Allied armor can be nicely chewed up when not supported by enough infantry to deter a Japanese attack.

Hmmm...good suggestion. Most of our armor in the Pacific is on Fiji after the destruction of the Jap armored division there. I think we also have two M-10 Bns in Oz.

< Message edited by Cap Mandrake -- 10/24/2011 7:14:41 PM >

(in reply to Wirraway_Ace)

Post #: 5630

RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/24/2011 7:32:11 PM

Wirraway_Ace

Posts: 1400
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: Austin / Brisbane
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Remember too, Mandrake that troops on the receiving end of bombardments gain experience...

witpqs, is this confirmed? While it makes some sense, the tests I saw conducted were confounded by the fact that the early war units used were below their national thresholds and appeared to be gaining experience due to prep points while they happened to be on the receiving end of bombardments.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 5631

RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/24/2011 7:34:39 PM

Wirraway_Ace

Posts: 1400
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: Austin / Brisbane
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

You know something? There are a LOT of WJD ground troops in this scenario.

Very true; however, I do not believe scenario 2 gives the japanese squads and the divisional AT any increase in "anti-hard" (I am not making this up) values which makes them susceptible on the defense to massed Allied armor. Remember Slim's philosophy on the use of tanks: "the more you use the less you lose".

Mike

p.s. this only works when the Japanese are on the defense. Allied armor can be nicely chewed up when not supported by enough infantry to deter a Japanese attack.

Hmmm...good suggestion. Most of our armor in the Pacific is on Fiji after the destruction of the Jap armored division there. I think we also have two M-10 Bns in Oz.

Until you get US units with Shermans, the OZ units that upgrade to Grants or any units with Matildas are hard for anti-tank rifles and 37mm AT guns to deal with.

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)

Post #: 5632

RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/24/2011 7:44:26 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Remember too, Mandrake that troops on the receiving end of bombardments gain experience...

witpqs, is this confirmed? While it makes some sense, the tests I saw conducted were confounded by the fact that the early war units used were below their national thresholds and appeared to be gaining experience due to prep points while they happened to be on the receiving end of bombardments.

I've watched Chinese units in China that had no combat rise to mid-40s experience after 2+ years, while those being routinely bombarded rise to 60+ in a matter of months!

(in reply to Wirraway_Ace)

Post #: 5633

RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/24/2011 7:53:51 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Think of the trouble they are going to have extricating that unit for duty elsewhere!

Whilest I concur with my Argletonian colleague about this observation, I must temper the heretical Allied enthusiasm by suggesting:

1. It will be easier for them to extricate at their leisure after they liquidate in situ the opposition at Port Hedland. Expect this forthwith before they can be worn down by Allied air bombardment.

2. Since PH is not under Allied CAP at the moment, IJ transport aircraft can extricate any units there with comparative ease. It will just take a bit longer.

3. Since the Allies do not control the sea lanes around PH, APD and other fast transport sorties can get in and out of there with comparative ease.

Two other questions come to mind:

1. What's the supply situation for Allied LCUs and support at PH?
2. Who's the bright bulb that agreed to let the Japs have all the extra cool toys in Scenario 2?

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 5634

RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/24/2011 8:07:21 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Unadjusted JJ assault strength at PH is now 952. Nearly 30K WJD. We are going to need another division. 20 days until Yorktown is ready. We will need to keep Broome and PH airfields down and attrit his gound forces there. Note also their conterbattery fire is still strong (altough AAA is waaay down)

Ground combat at Port Hedland (57,129)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 20150 troops, 593 guns, 399 vehicles, Assault Value = 641

Defending force 29114 troops, 244 guns, 178 vehicles, Assault Value = 953

Japanese ground losses:
11 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
56 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 7 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Assaulting units:
32nd Infantry Division
102nd Combat Engineer Regiment
22nd (East African) Brigade
2nd British Division
34th Aviation Base Force
7th RAN Base Force
14th USN Naval Construction Battalion
10th USN Naval Construction Battalion
2nd Medium Regiment

Defending units:
56th Recon Regiment
56th Engineer Regiment
4th Ind. Engineer Regiment
65th Brigade
5th Division
4th Infantry Regiment
9th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
9th Field AF Construction Battalion
30th Fld AA Gun Co
22nd Air Flotilla
2nd Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
51st JNAF AF Unit

The IJA 5th Division is a tough customer. IIRC, it's the best IJA ID by unit experience. They start bayonette practice shortly after weaning. I'll have to check later as I'm "at work".

This may be one of those instances that looking at raw AV will be misleading. I think the Emperor's crack sons of heaven will be able to produce better results than your raw Yankee and East African troops, however.

Being as you haven't taken PH and are on the defensive there, you'll be relying on the negligible terrain benefits afforded you from PH defensive terrain. I'd expect a shock attack within the next couple turns, after JJ can reduce some of the disruption from the landing. That will push you off PH into the desert and wreck your infantry.

Can you forestall this by having your heavies attack ground troops at PH? The heavies do a fairly good job of disrupting ground troops, even if they don't kill 'em.

Hey-look at the bright side: you won't have to rush in another infantry division to take PH! Chin up what what.

< Message edited by Chickenboy -- 10/24/2011 8:10:42 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)

Post #: 5635

RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/24/2011 8:09:12 PM

Chickenboy

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

Ah, yes-one more comment:

The AAA is likely way down because AA units are affected by airfield damage. Since you've been bombing PH's airfields into rubble, it's likely that many of the AAA guns are in a disrupted state. I would not read anything into the Jap supply status of PH on the whole from this observation.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 5636

RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/24/2011 8:16:07 PM

Cap Mandrake

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

With the Beta, supply at PH for Allied troops is very good. I think we now need to stop bombarding and get ready for a possible Jap attack. I have serious doubts about the ability of JJ troops ashore now to evict us promptly.

Still, 5th Div is a tough unit. If they start to attack, we might have to go in with damaged carriers and put Aussie I Corps ashore. Uggh.

Carnavon is now level 3 and Exmouth should have fighters in 4-5 days.

Meekathara will be level 9 shortly. In an emergency, whe can bring in the B-24's.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 5637

RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/24/2011 8:20:44 PM

Cap Mandrake

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Can you forestall this by having your heavies attack ground troops at PH? The heavies do a fairly good job of disrupting ground troops, even if they don't kill 'em.

Hey-look at the bright side: you won't have to rush in another infantry division to take PH! Chin up what what.

Yes..I think we will have to move the B-24's from Alice to Geraldton.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 5638

RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/24/2011 8:21:21 PM

Chickenboy

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

Your troops are in a rough spot, Cap'n. I'd consider it an emergency right now. Can you find a reason why the (undisrupted) 5th ID and company shock attack shouldn't put 2:1 or 3:1 odds on you and force you from the hex?

ETA: Prep levels of Allied troops, perhaps?

ETA II: My guess is that 5th ID was acting as theatre reserve awaiting an opportunity to plug a hole in the N. Australia front. Unless he was deliberately baiting you into a trap at Port Hedland per se, it's my guess that 5th doesn't have much prep time for PH.

< Message edited by Chickenboy -- 10/24/2011 8:24:49 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)

Post #: 5639

RE: Allied TF Behaviour - 10/24/2011 8:26:54 PM

Cap Mandrake

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Your troops are in a rough spot, Cap'n. I'd consider it an emergency right now. Can you find a reason why the (undisrupted) 5th ID and company shock attack shouldn't put 2:1 or 3:1 odds on you and force you from the hex?

ETA: Prep levels of Allied troops, perhaps?

32nd ID is not fully prepped for PH, but almost certainly neither is Jap 5th Div. We don't know, of course, how much disruption our previous air bombardments have done at PH.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 5640