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: Naval Patrols

 
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: Naval Patrols Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Naval Patrols - 3/16/2015 10:12:02 PM   
IdahoNYer


Posts: 2616
Joined: 9/6/2009
From: NYer living in Boise, ID
Status: offline
quote:

- Catalinas can train "torpedo attack" skill while FPs can't. I don't know if I might be overshooting here, but early on the war, I thought that using only the Devastator squadrons for torpedo training was not enough.


I'm tracking. No other way to train naval torpedo bomber crews. I just don't use a 12 plane squadron - just 2-3 planes for my PBY training squadrons. Do you find better results with more planes?

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 511
RE: Naval Patrols - 3/16/2015 10:22:05 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

quote:

- Catalinas can train "torpedo attack" skill while FPs can't. I don't know if I might be overshooting here, but early on the war, I thought that using only the Devastator squadrons for torpedo training was not enough.


I'm tracking. No other way to train naval torpedo bomber crews. I just don't use a 12 plane squadron - just 2-3 planes for my PBY training squadrons. Do you find better results with more planes?

In my experience, and IIRC Michael mentioned this once long ago, the trainees Experience will rise more slowly with fewer planes in the group. The skill being trained in seems to rise just as fast.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 512
RE: Naval Patrols - 3/16/2015 10:53:02 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		By looking at my training results at the CONUS; where I have plenty of squadron with few planes (usually those that will withdraw out of theatre with planes), my results are consistent with what witpqs said.

And although I am certainly not having ample Catalina pools; I haven't have an issue keeping all squadrons at full allowance. That said I did one early withdrawal to get PPs for buying a USA Div.

date is May 14, 1942 and my pools are:
PBY-4 = 1 ; used so far -1
PBY-5 = 3 ; used so far 47
PBY-5A= 7 ; used so far 30

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 513
RE: Naval Patrols - 3/16/2015 11:05:40 PM   
IdahoNYer


Posts: 2616
Joined: 9/6/2009
From: NYer living in Boise, ID
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

quote:

- Catalinas can train "torpedo attack" skill while FPs can't. I don't know if I might be overshooting here, but early on the war, I thought that using only the Devastator squadrons for torpedo training was not enough.


I'm tracking. No other way to train naval torpedo bomber crews. I just don't use a 12 plane squadron - just 2-3 planes for my PBY training squadrons. Do you find better results with more planes?

In my experience, and IIRC Michael mentioned this once long ago, the trainees Experience will rise more slowly with fewer planes in the group. The skill being trained in seems to rise just as fast.



Thanks witpqs!

Still manage to learn something new on this forum on a daily basis. Will see if I can spare some more airframes to my training groups!

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 514
May 14th: Carriers near Suva!! - 3/16/2015 11:13:34 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
May 14th, 42
I got the first results of my naval patrol search network; I found carriers 12 hexes north of Suva! It is premature to say if this is the full KB and/ or if this is an invasion or a simple raid.

But before going there, submarines were quite active last turn; highlights:
- I-158 was sunk at Diego Garcia, this after two really nasty DC attacks, followed by surface action.
- I-168 sunk xAP Cap St Jacques near Enderbury island
- Tautog sunk xAK Tokusima Maru, near Saishu To
- Ro-67 failed to hit xAKL Masayas in the surface, no hits

The sinking of I-158 was quite a show, it started at night with DD Isaac Sweers scoring one direct hit and 3 near misses.
Then this was followed later on the day with DD Tjerk Hiddes scoring another 10 hits, a couple were direct hits, the rest near misses, but with all the ugly messages: heavy fuel leaking, fires in the control room, etc. You can feel the ordeal!!
Finally, DD Inconstant found it in the surface and put it out of its misery: 5 direct gun hits and "Sub slips beneath the waves"

Of course, this means that he is now well aware that a heavy RN TF is in Diego Garcia; surprise for any raiding in the Indian Ocean is completely lost.
At the very least, he didn't discover the carriers (at Diego Garcia) or the Battleships (at Addu)... so if he comes with a surface heavy TF; I might still be able to surprise him

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Diego Garcia at 11,62

Japanese Ships
SS I-158, hits 4

Allied Ships
CA Dorsetshire
CL Newcastle
CL Glasgow
CLAA Van Heemskerck
DD Nestor
DD Isis
DD Hotspur
DD Tjerk Hiddes
DD Isaac Sweers

ASW attack near Diego Garcia at 11,62

Japanese Ships
SS I-158, hits 10, heavy damage

Allied Ships
CA Dorsetshire
CL Newcastle
CL Glasgow
CLAA Van Heemskerck
DD Nestor
DD Isis
DD Hotspur
DD Tjerk Hiddes
DD Isaac Sweers

ASW attack near Diego Garcia at 11,62

Japanese Ships
SS I-158, hits 5, and is sunk

Allied Ships
CL Hobart
DD Encounter
DD Inconstant

SS I-158 is sighted by escort
DD Inconstant firing on surfaced sub ....
Sub slips beneath the waves

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 515
RE: May 14th: Carriers near Suva!! - 3/16/2015 11:50:18 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		The main event of tonight; carriers near Suva!!




As you can see, there is little information on their intentions. But the fact he tried to skip the naval search patterns hints his objective is Suva.
If I have to guess, this is a raid, and not an invasion.

Notice how lucky I was with timing; as you can see on the map, I have a heavy amphibious TF carrying the 32th USA division to Luganville,
had he arrived two turns ago, he would had intercepted and likely massacred a full division.

I am of course also very happy about the search network, as I can easily move out all TFs at risk. I will move another Catalina squadron to Suva to have even more coverage

I am not sure what to do at Luganville, I am sure he has not detected it and I think I could keep unloading for another turn. However, probably better to be cautious and just move west to Australia.
The devices that are still embarked are not critical: some motorized support, few artillery guns, the 32th can leave without them for the short time.

I am also thinking about "hiding" the SCTFs, maybe disband in a dot base and see what happens, if this is an invasion it will be good to have some guns nearby

Thoughts??

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 3/17/2015 12:51:03 AM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 516
RE: May 14th: Carriers near Suva!! - 3/16/2015 11:55:05 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		And this is the 32th Division at Luganville. As mentioned, they just arrived yesterday, and there are still some devices embarked.

I am almost certain he doesn't know they just arrived yesterday, as his recon is focused on Ndeni




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 517
RE: May 14th: Carriers near Suva!! - 3/17/2015 12:29:19 AM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		tomorrow's search pattern




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 518
May 15th: Enemy carriers left - 3/17/2015 8:24:52 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		Looks like this carrier foray was just an attempt to raid. Most likely he cancel it as soon as he got spotted.
2 turns before he would had found the 32nd division amph. TF, now he will get just empty ocean, so it makes sense to withdraw.




The other good news of the turn is that the Chinese hordes obliterated a regiment south of Chungking. He had the balls to put 1 regiment blocking the southern road... so I had to make him pay

I sent 9 corps and 4 will persecute; while the rest go back to Chungking

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at 76,46 (near Chungking)

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 86822 troops, 332 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 2790

Defending force 3882 troops, 26 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 127

Allied adjusted assault: 1608

Japanese adjusted defense: 25

Allied assault odds: 64 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(+), supply(-)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
1176 casualties reported
Squads: 110 destroyed, 46 disabled
Non Combat: 32 destroyed, 18 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 21 (6 destroyed, 15 disabled)
Units retreated 1

Allied ground losses:
1873 casualties reported
Squads: 87 destroyed, 73 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 4 disabled
Guns lost 8 (3 destroyed, 5 disabled)

Defeated Japanese Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
75th Chinese Corps
48th Chinese Corps
85th Chinese Corps
14th Chinese Corps
56th Chinese Corps
81st Chinese Corps
2nd Chinese Corps
68th Chinese Corps
90th Chinese Corps

Defending units:
58th Infantry Regiment



Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 3/17/2015 9:31:30 PM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 519
RE: May 15th: Enemy carriers left - 3/17/2015 9:39:43 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline 		I think that is the first time I have seen the Chinese have more casualties but fewer destroyed squads than the Japanese!
Well Done!

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 520
May 16th: boring - 3/19/2015 1:49:35 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		Nothing really happened in the last turn; I had an interesting email exchange with PresterJohn; I mentioned that I saw the wolf at the door, but it just left.

this is his answer:
previous experience is anything to go by as soon as the allies spot a few wolves they tend to scatter and run, then make mischief elsewhere. Chasing few lambs tend to use a lot of fuel for little gain and opens opportunities for sheepdogs :) Suprise is everything.

And I have to agree, he was not going to get anything if he kept moving south. surprise is really everything

Some thoughts on this:
- My naval search network worked; however, by travelling in the midpoint between Vaitupu and Ndeni, he managed to remain unspotted for too long, I have decided to move another 12-plane patrol from Xmas island to Luganville; this will close the gap. I will also move another 12-plane patrol from Pearl to Brisbane.

- The carriers need to be in Suva, as this will help me exploit these kind of events, a Midway scenario would be a dream come true.
That said, this is long term. I am not yet happy with the # and quality of planes; particularly fighter and dive bombers. This because I decided to change carrier plane splits; I took out all Devastators and filled the carriers with Marine fighters/ DBs thus I have an asorted mix of inadequate planes, not to mention too many green pilots in the Marine squadrons. Also, I am getting close to the June 42 refit for Lex/ Sara





< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 3/19/2015 2:52:22 PM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 521
RE: May 16th: boring - 3/19/2015 7:20:36 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline 		I skip the June 42 refit for Lex/Sara because it actually lowers the total AA value (although the new guns are more effective than the 1.1s) and the radar replacement has less range than the old one (but may be more effective in bad weather). It's a judgement call, but the CVs are badly needed in mid-1942 and the refit takes too long for not much gain, IMO.
I would recommend at least waiting for Wasp/North Carolina TF to get on station before withdrawing Lex and Sara.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 522
RE: May 16th: boring - 3/19/2015 8:20:08 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		BB - Beware the misleading AA value number! That number is produced solely for human consumption and is not used by the combat routines at all.

Prior to the upgrade in question those ships have more weapons that can destroy/disable the aircraft after the aircraft can release their ordnance. Post-upgrade the ships have more weapons that can destroy/disable the aircraft before weapons release.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 523
RE: May 16th: boring - 3/19/2015 9:59:20 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		The upgrade is a change of
- 5' guns: 5/25 mk10 to 5/38 mk12
- a little more fuel
- get rid of useless 50cal MGs
- loss of 12 1.1' AA guns
- get a newer/ better radar; I have read comments from Symon that CXAM SS/AS are literaly garbage radars, so might make sense even if they have less range

I still have around 10 days to decide; I am not using my carriers for anything right now, so we will see.
To be honest, I am also afraid of losing by auto-victory if somehow I lost a carrier battle




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 3/19/2015 10:59:45 PM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 524
RE: May 16th: boring - 3/20/2015 3:50:21 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline 		Didn't notice the change to 5"/38s - that does make a difference! Thanks for point that out guys!

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 525
Carrier battle of Andaman Sea - 3/23/2015 9:44:23 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		May 18th brought the game's first carrier battle in the war

The Royal Navy's Eastern Fleet engaged light carriers (mini-KB) and battleships (Mutsu) near Andaman.

Before going to the details, lets check the background and the preliminary moves.

On the early 2nd week of May I tried to intercept the Imperial Guards loading into transports at Trincomalee. This was cancelled for several reasons, main ones being: 1) strong LBA presence at Ceylon. 2) His use of "fast transport" destroyers, not the best of targets for TB
3) Fuel levels low. Thus I decided to postpone and move to Diego Garcia to refuel

On May 14th the refueling TFs spot and sunk a submarine (I-158) lurking at the base looking for easy prey. This was a confirmed kill, with multiple DC attacks, ending on a surface engagement in which light cruisers, destroyers used guns to put it out of its misery.
This was great news, but of course this hinted him there was something brewing. The TF composition was obviously not ASW patrols.

Having things on perspective, I should had withdrawn, as surprise was obviously lost. Nevertheless, I decided to try another foray into the Indian Ocean for the following reasons:
- I knew KB was not there, at most I would meet mini-KB
- Better yet, there was always a chance to get a long range attack to a BB/ cruiser TF if mini-KB didn't appear.
- The path chosen was in the limits of naval search/ naval attack from Ceylon.
- Most if not all the ships involved are scheduled to withdraw, so even at the worst case scenario, the loss would be only on victory points.
- Last but not least, BOREDOM... we were having very boring turns lately and although I know this is not excuse, I was eager to try some little raiding.

The plan was to use the cruisers as bait, and send whatever he reacts with to the waiting CVs/ BBs. Things didn't work as expected, but results were not that bad

This is the fleet position before the battle:




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 3/24/2015 4:49:56 AM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 526
RE: Carrier battle of Andaman Sea - 3/23/2015 9:59:01 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		And a rather messy picture of the carrier TF composition and orders..

- I was wondering why the Martlets didn't fly escort and instead decided to protect the TF... Answer: I changed them to 100% CAP 0 range when they arrived to Diego Garcia.. And I forgot to change them back to "escort"
Albacore pilots not amused




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 3/23/2015 11:08:04 PM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 527
RE: Naval Patrols - 3/23/2015 10:41:29 PM   
apbarog


Posts: 3769
Joined: 5/23/2002
Status: offline 		sorry mis-posting

< Message edited by apbarog -- 3/23/2015 11:41:42 PM >

(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 528
RE: Carrier battle of Andaman Sea - 3/23/2015 10:58:35 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		The 1st day of the battle of Andaman Sea, and YES, I expect additional action tomorrow.

AM Phase: Naval Search detected enemy
- The battle started in the AM phase with float planes finding enemy carriers. This while recon flights also were detected over my TFs.
RN Carriers reacted, but there were no strikes.

PM Phase: Japanese attack:
- Once again, naval search detected enemy carriers, while bombers and recon flew over TF. RN reacted but 22 Albacores lost cohesion.
- Then the incoming Japanese strike: a perfectly coordinated formation of 12 B5N1s, 12 B5N2s and 27 A6M2s was intercepted by 15 Sea Hurricanes 1B and 15 Martlets II

CAP results:
- 7 Zeros destroyed, plus 3 very likely operational losses ("spin away on fire" message)
- 4 Kates destroyed (2 B5N1, 2 B5N2)

AA results:
- 8 Kates destroyed, 11 damaged
- All torpedoes missed, zero damage to the fleet!!!!!




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Car Nicobar at 35,61

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid detected at 75 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 32 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 27
B5N1 Kate x 12
B5N2 Kate x 12

Allied aircraft
Sea Hurricane Ib x 15
Martlet II x 15

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 4 destroyed
B5N1 Kate: 1 destroyed, 3 damaged
B5N1 Kate: 2 destroyed by flak
B5N2 Kate: 1 destroyed, 5 damaged
B5N2 Kate: 2 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
Martlet II: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
CV Formidable
CLAA Van Heemskerck

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x B5N1 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 45cm Type 91 Torp
8 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 45cm Type 91 Torp

CAP engaged:
No.880 Sqn FAA with Sea Hurricane Ib (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 11000 , scrambling fighters between 6000 and 11000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 22 minutes
1 planes vectored on to bombers
No.888 Sqn FAA with Martlet II (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 6000 , scrambling fighters between 6000 and 14000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 15 minutes


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 3/24/2015 5:10:16 AM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 529
RE: Carrier battle of Andaman Sea - 3/23/2015 11:12:41 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline 		Great Result! It appears that setting the Martlets at 100% CAP wasn't a mistake - you were just unconsciously prescient!

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 530
RE: Carrier battle of Andaman Sea - 3/23/2015 11:25:25 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		PM Phase: British attacks:
As mentioned before, of the approximately 45 Albacores that launch, 22 lost cohesion. This was actually good news, as they put off balance the Japanese CAP defense:

1st strike:
- 23 Albacores attacked, 13 survived CAP
- They scored one torpedo hit at CVL Shoho, fuel storage explosion.

2nd strike:
- 8 Albacores attacked, CAP was out of position, all passed
- They scored one torpedo hit at BB Mutsu, no visible damage

3d strike:
- 14 Albacores attacked, 8 survived CAP
- Another torpedo hit for BB Mutsu, no visible damage





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Little Andaman at 38,60

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 23 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 27

Allied aircraft
Albacore I x 23

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Albacore I: 4 destroyed, 13 damaged
Albacore I: 2 destroyed by flak

Japanese Ships
CVL Shoho, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
CVE Hosho
CVL Zuiho

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x Albacore I launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Mk XII Torpedo
8 x Albacore I launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Mk XII Torpedo

CAP engaged:
Shoho-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 6 on standby, 0 scrambling)
6 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 9000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 4 minutes
Zuiho-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 6 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 20000 and 29070.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 20 minutes
Hosho-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 6 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 2 minutes

Fuel storage explosion on CVL Shoho


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Little Andaman at 38,60

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 12 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 21

Allied aircraft
Albacore I x 8

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Albacore I: 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Mutsu, Torpedo hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
8 x Albacore I launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Mk XII Torpedo

CAP engaged:
Shoho-1 with A6M2 Zero (5 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters to 5000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 34 minutes
Zuiho-1 with A6M2 Zero (6 airborne, 3 on standby, 0 scrambling)
6 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters to 13000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 7 minutes
Hosho-1 with A6M2 Zero (2 airborne, 3 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 54 minutes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Little Andaman at 38,60

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 34 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 20 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 19

Allied aircraft
Albacore I x 14

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Albacore I: 3 destroyed, 4 damaged
Albacore I: 1 destroyed by flak

Japanese Ships
BB Mutsu, Torpedo hits 1
CVL Zuiho

Aircraft Attacking:
8 x Albacore I launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Mk XII Torpedo

CAP engaged:
Shoho-1 with A6M2 Zero (3 airborne, 0 on standby, 1 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters to 12000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 28 minutes
Zuiho-1 with A6M2 Zero (3 airborne, 3 on standby, 0 scrambling)
6 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters to 13000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 26 minutes
Hosho-1 with A6M2 Zero (1 airborne, 3 on standby, 1 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 3000 and 9000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 23 minutes


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 3/24/2015 5:18:48 AM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 531
RE: Carrier battle of Andaman Sea - 3/23/2015 11:55:09 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		Summary of the 1st day of battle:

Japan:
- CVL Shoho damaged, likely on fire and out of action. Air losses report hints it didn't sink
- BB Mutsu damaged, likely with heavy float damage. It will limp slowly to Singapore for repairs
- Zeros: 10 to 11 loses
- Kates: I estimated 14 losses, game says 16

Allies:
- No ship losses

Albacores:
19 destroyed, 8 damaged, 22 available, enough torpedos for tomorrow
pilots: 8 KIA, 2 WIA, 6 MIA

Martlets:
4 destroyed, 8 damaged, 4 available + 16 more on CVL Hermes, this carrier was covering the BBs; but it will now steam at full speed to join the carrier force
pilots: 1 KIA

Sea Hurricanes:
3 damaged, 12 available
pilots: no losses





But a more important question is what is available for tomorrow?

For the Allies it is very easy: 22 Albacores, 12 Sea Hurricanes and 20 Martlets once Hermes joins
This is good enough for a second day strike force.

For Japan it is a lot more complex, as we will need assumptions:
1st: carriers available are those already engaged = CVL Shoho, Zuiho, CVE Hosho
This gives 30 + 30 + 20 airplanes = 80 planes
However, I was attacked by 27 Zeroes, and another 27 were on CAP, which gives a total of 54 Zeroes; the discrepancy might be simply less Kates or maybe he is carrying above limit.

2nd: Fighter/ Bomber split is:
Shoho = 20 Zeroes, 12 Kates
Zuiho = 20 Zeroes, 12 Kates
Hosho = 14 Zeroes, 6 Kates
This gives a full totals of 54 fighters, 30 bombers before losses
Tomorrow, he should have hypothetically available 44 Zeroes plus no more than 16 bombers, likely less, maybe around 10 as some of his damaged planes will be unavailable.

3rd: CVL Shoho is out of action, thus the total of bombers will be even less. maybe 6 to 8 Kates


In conclusion, Tomorrow's battle looks promising. While his strike force will be seriously diminished, mine is powerful enough to get additional hits, hopefully to the cripples.
That said, I am expecting another Albacore massacre as there are more than enough Zeroes. This time I will escort the Albacores.

Another point to make, there is a very good chance of gun action between SCTF; I hope that for once, I have some luck on the surface combat.


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 3/24/2015 2:17:34 AM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 532
RE: Carrier battle of Andaman Sea - 3/23/2015 11:56:50 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline 		Are the Albacores as tough as the Swordfish at surviving damage? How many of the damaged ones were lost?

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 533
RE: Carrier battle of Andaman Sea - 3/24/2015 12:34:54 AM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		I started with 49 Albacores; all ready

45 attacked, 4 did naval search

16 didn't penetrate CAP; of these 13 were destroyed, 3 damaged

29 reached the fleet, 5 were destroyed by flak, 1 to OP losses


26 in total came back, plus 4 doing naval search = 30 total planes now; of these 8 are damaged.

Se we can say that of 29 attacking planes, 14 were hit; 5 of which were destroyed by flak, 1 a write off, and 8 required repair time


< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 3/24/2015 1:38:31 AM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 534
RE: Carrier battle of Andaman Sea - 3/24/2015 12:40:20 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		With no fighter escorts I call that pretty tough!

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 535
RE: Carrier battle of Andaman Sea - 3/24/2015 12:44:35 AM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

With no fighter escorts I call that pretty tough!


There was luck involved of course , but also it is important to mention this is not the real Kido Butai; my opponent have had carrier plane losses since day one; thus I bet this is team "B" or "C" at most

EDIT: you can see on 3 threads above that the total A6M2 (FOW) losses are 316 planes, 200 to Air-to-Air, those usually over Allied territory

EDIT #2: Also check the altitude GAP. Zeros were at 20,000 feet, Albacores came lower at 6,000

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 3/24/2015 5:23:10 AM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 536
RE: Carrier battle of Andaman Sea - 3/24/2015 2:35:34 AM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		I expect blood tomorrow

Hopefully less British and more Japanese blood




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 537
RE: Carrier battle of Andaman Sea - 3/24/2015 3:58:43 AM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Are the Albacores as tough as the Swordfish at surviving damage? How many of the damaged ones were lost?


Actually they look better





Attachment (1)

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 538
RE: Carrier battle of Andaman Sea - 3/24/2015 4:03:06 AM   
Alikchi2

 

Posts: 1785
Joined: 5/14/2004
Status: offline 		Fantastic work. Love to see the RN getting some.

_____________________________


(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 539
RE: Carrier battle of Andaman Sea - 3/24/2015 4:15:48 AM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		thanks!!

Was this just good luck for the Allies?

although obviously good rolls did help, it is important to mention some facts:

- 45 Albacores attacked vs. only 24 Kates. Bigger numbers always help
- 30 Allied fighters on CAP vs. 27 for the Japanese.
- 27 Japanese escorts, while no British escorts at all. But this was mitigated by an altitude GAP. While the Allied CAP was at the same relative height than the Japanese raid, the Japanese CAP was completely off at 20,000 feet. The raid came much lower at 6,000 feet and then dropped to sea level for torpedo attack
- Allied AA was significantly stronger than Japanese, just compare:
* Formidable's 16 DPs guns, 48 pom-poms and 10 Oerlikons 20mm vs. Shoho's 8 DP guns and 12 Hotchkiss 25mm
* Van Hermerskerck's 10 DP guns, 4 pom-poms, 6 Oerlikons 20mm vs. Mutsu's 8 DP guns and 20 Hotchkiss 25mm

Also if we are talking about luck; something I didn't mention was that I got 2 additional hits to BB Mutsu, but those were "hit, no explosion". With better luck BB Mutsu would be already sunk

Looking forward to next turn

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 3/25/2015 2:02:37 PM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 540
Page:   <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Naval Patrols Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   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

1.969