Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Nov 17th: Two IJN destroyers sunk

 
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 >> Nov 17th: Two IJN destroyers sunk Page: <<   < prev  33 34 [35] 36 37   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Nov 17th: Two IJN destroyers sunk - 12/19/2015 10:30:57 AM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		PresterJohn had been naval bombing Luganville for the last months or so. In all I think he had done it 4 times now.
He would typically send a bombardment TF at full speed, then it would be gone by daylight. Damage to the base had been, overall, low; several planes damaged, only a few destroyed.
Moreover, all the Pacific area airforce is flying non strategic, abundant planes like P-39 or P-40s. Loses had not been a concern.
I also decided, a few turns ago, to move significant dive bomber and torpedo bomber assets there, knowing of course that they would be at risk, somehow mitigated by their relatively high pool numbers.

Well, last turn things really worked out!
first: the 400+ minefield finally yielded some results: DD Hamakaze, a Kagero! hit a mine. It then drop out of the bombardment force with DD Karukaya as escort
second: although bombardment TF did some significant damage (I lost 6 Dauntless + two Avengers on the ground) it did not close the airfield
third: escort TF of DDs Hamakaze and Karukaya was too slow to get out of range ... both were sunk by Dauntless dive bombers
A good victory; with one week of production I will make good the losses, while Japanese destroyers are really scare and hard to replace, specially for a Kagero fleet destroyer




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 31 encounters mine field at Luganville (120,150)

Japanese Ships
DD Hamakaze, Mine hits 1, on fire, heavy damage



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Luganville at 120,150

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra: 35 damaged
SBD-3 Dauntless: 56 damaged
SBD-3 Dauntless: 4 destroyed on ground
Beaufighter Ic: 28 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 23 damaged
TBF-1 Avenger: 14 damaged
TBF-1 Avenger: 1 destroyed on ground

Japanese Ships
CA Kako
CA Nachi
CA Myoko
CL Yubari

Allied ground losses:
201 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 5 destroyed, 32 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 5 disabled
Guns lost 8 (1 destroyed, 7 disabled)
Vehicles lost 9 (2 destroyed, 7 disabled)

Airbase hits 16
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 39

CA Kako firing at Luganville
F1M2 Pete acting as spotter for CA Nachi
CA Nachi firing at Luganville
CA Myoko firing at Luganville
CL Yubari firing at 32nd Infantry Division

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Luganville at 119,148

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 9 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Allied aircraft
Beaufighter Ic x 2
P-39D Airacobra x 10
TBF-1 Avenger x 5

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
DD Karukaya

Aircraft Attacking:
5 x TBF-1 Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22.4in Mk 13 Torp.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Luganville at 119,148

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 9 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 17
SBD-3 Dauntless x 9

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
DD Karukaya, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
DD Hamakaze, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage

Aircraft Attacking:
5 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DD Karukaya
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DD Hamakaze


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Luganville at 119,148

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 2 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 0 minutes

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 16
SBD-3 Dauntless x 9

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
DD Karukaya, Bomb hits 3, and is sunk
DD Hamakaze, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
1 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DD Karukaya
Hamakaze dead in the water ...
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DD Hamakaze


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 12/19/2015 11:52:13 AM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 1021
Nov 17th: Economic (fuel/ supply) update - 12/21/2015 1:28:35 AM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		Prester John is busy, so this is a good time to review Allied economy:

I don't really know if these numbers are reasonable as of November 42, but notice I am playing DBB-C, which has a reduced cargo capacity for freighters




My notes:
- I am over delivering fuel to India, while under delivering supply... this needs to be corrected
- Hawaii and Fiji looks OK
- New Zealand is kind of low, but as a secondary theatre, I can keep it low priority
- Australia supply is OK, but could use more fuel, notice I have turned off Heavy Industry precisely to avoid fuel expenditure
- I need to send more convoys to New Caledonia (Noumea) and New Hebrides (Luganville), the later is a bit tricky to do as this has become Japan's favorite naval bombarment target
- China is already out of supply except for Kuming and a few pockets

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 12/21/2015 2:46:54 AM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 1022
Nov 18th: Kate strikes - 12/21/2015 8:50:20 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		Something I had not mentioned too much is that for the last few turns we have been fighting a low intensity air to sea battle at Cox's Bazaar

I basically sent a TF of cruisers to escort a small xAKL TF. This was in part to tempt him to send his naval forces into my CV and LBAs close to Calcutta.
And a secondary objective was to force supply into Akyab/ Cox's Bazaar

This is how things looked yesterday:


with losses low at both ends: 1 xAKL sunk, 1 heavily damage. A handful of Nells and Vals destroyed

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 12/21/2015 9:51:09 PM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 1023
RE: Nov 18th: Kate strikes - 12/21/2015 9:12:54 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		I was confident that my significant number ofplanes on LRCAP plus Japan's previous losses would be enough to take care of any new attack. Units with severe losses also get a morale hit

I was certainly not expecting to see fresh squadrons, which is precisely what happened this turn. The results were interesting, I don't know yet if this is a victory or defeat. I don't have yet the turn, only the combat replay.

To summarize:
- CA Exeter and CA Quincy received two 250kg bombs each ... "on fire"
- CL Birmingham received one torpedo... "on fire"
- DD Hotspur one 250kg bomb ... "on fire"

AM losses - Japan
- 8 sweeping A6M3 Zero
- 3 unescorted G3M3 Nell
- 6 unescorted D3A1 Val
- 5 escorting A6M2 Zero
- 2 well escorted B5N2 Kate: out of 38 striking planes, all penetrated CAP, 2 went downed by flak)

PM losses - Japan
- 27 unescorted B5N2 Kate destroyed : out of 32 striking planes, 20 in the initial approach + 2 by flak + 5 post combat

Allied aircraft losses (and ship exact damage) to be updated once I get the turn.
I am confident most ships, if not all, will survive. And since damage was spread among many ships, they will all have a good chance to reach either Calcutta or Chittagong in one turn


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Cox's Bazar , at 54,43

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 14 NM, estimated altitude 22,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3 Zero x 13

Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIa Trop x 9
Hurricane IIb Trop x 18
Hurricane IIc Trop x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3 Zero: 5 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Hurricane IIa Trop: 1 destroyed
Hurricane IIb Trop: 1 destroyed

CAP engaged:
No.60 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIc Trop (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 9 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 34 minutes
No.79 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIb Trop (9 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
9 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 20000.
Raid is overhead
No.136 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIb Trop (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 9 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 15000.
Raid is overhead
No.258 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIa Trop (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 9 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 20000.
Raid is overhead
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Cox's Bazar at 54,43

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 63 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 23 minutes

Japanese aircraft
G3M3 Nell x 3

Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIa Trop x 7
Hurricane IIb Trop x 17
Hurricane IIc Trop x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M3 Nell: 2 destroyed

No Allied losses

CAP engaged:
No.60 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIc Trop (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
9 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters to 17000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 1 minutes
No.79 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIb Trop (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
9 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters to 19000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 107 minutes
No.136 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIb Trop (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 69 minutes
No.258 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIa Trop (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
7 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters to 14000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Cox's Bazar at 54,43

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 74 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 31 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 27
B5N2 Kate x 38
Ki-43-IIb Oscar x 4

Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIa Trop x 6
Hurricane IIb Trop x 17
Hurricane IIc Trop x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 4 destroyed
B5N2 Kate: 7 damaged
B5N2 Kate: 1 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
Hurricane IIa Trop: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
CA Exeter, Bomb hits 2, on fire
CL Birmingham
CA Quincy, Bomb hits 2, on fire
DD Hotspur, Bomb hits 1, on fire

Aircraft Attacking:
37 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 6000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
No.60 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIc Trop (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters to 6000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 10 minutes
No.79 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIb Trop (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 9 scrambling)
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters to 4000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 24 minutes
No.136 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIb Trop (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 8 scrambling)
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 38 minutes
No.258 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIa Trop (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters to 6000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 31 minutes

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CA Exeter
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DD Hotspur


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Cox's Bazar at 54,43

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 13 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Japanese aircraft
D3A1 Val x 6

Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIa Trop x 1
Hurricane IIb Trop x 3
Hurricane IIc Trop x 2

Japanese aircraft losses
D3A1 Val: 4 destroyed

No Allied losses

CAP engaged:
No.60 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIc Trop (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters to 9000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 134 minutes
No.136 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIb Trop (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 13000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 145 minutes
No.258 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIa Trop (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters to 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 16 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Cox's Bazar at 54,43

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 79 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 33 minutes

Japanese aircraft
B5N2 Kate x 32

Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIa Trop x 6
Hurricane IIb Trop x 13
Hurricane IIc Trop x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N2 Kate: 15 destroyed, 6 damaged
B5N2 Kate: 1 destroyed by flak

No Allied losses

Allied Ships
CL Birmingham, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
CA Quincy

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

CAP engaged:
No.60 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIc Trop (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 6 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 13 minutes
No.79 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIb Trop (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 7 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 33 minutes
No.136 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIb Trop (6 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
6 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 15000.
Raid is overhead
No.258 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIa Trop (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 6 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 8 minutes



< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 12/22/2015 1:50:48 AM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 1024
RE: Nov 18th: Kate strikes - 12/22/2015 12:34:01 AM   
jwolf

 

Posts: 2493
Joined: 12/3/2013
Status: offline 		Your ships will probably be OK but my bet is that they will be out of action for quite a while. One torpedo on a CL can really cripple it or even sink it outright. But he'll need fresh bombers if he wants to try to inflict further damage. Good luck.

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 1025
RE: Nov 18th: Kate strikes - 12/22/2015 12:46:05 AM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		I agree, most at risk is DD Hotspur... it is a small DD and 250kg could had done lots of damage

The good news is that other than float planes re-directed to Diamond Harbor, I did not get any critical/ flooding message. Fingers crossed they can do good speed
I am not too worried about them being out of action, I have many idle cruisers, the Pacific is full of them.. I might re-base some, but really it is now time to start focusing on the Pacific.

EDIT: Notice the AM turn went with bombs, PM turn with torpedoes. He set the strike with torpedoes, but as far as I know, the final ordenance load is completely random. Maybe they decided it was better to use bombs? targets were highly maneuverable. 5 bomb hits.. I doubt he would had gotten the same results with torpedoes

Knowing my oponent.. he will keep pushing, maybe with the fleet?? I know he is angry, he mentioned he was yelling during the PM phase ... It was good to see these f-ing Kates die as flies.. I played the combat reply 3 times

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 12/22/2015 1:53:47 AM >

(in reply to jwolf)
Post #: 1026
RE: Nov 18th: Kate strikes - 12/22/2015 6:11:59 AM   
morejeffs

 

Posts: 249
Joined: 4/24/2013
Status: offline 		Seeing original KB pilots die in vain is a truly glorious sight to behold...That...and masses of Betty/Nells going down in flams....

_____________________________

that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 1027
RE: Nov 18th: Kate strikes - 12/22/2015 11:40:30 AM   
BBfanboy


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

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

EDIT: Notice the AM turn went with bombs, PM turn with torpedoes. He set the strike with torpedoes, but as far as I know, the final ordenance load is completely random. Maybe they decided it was better to use bombs? targets were highly maneuverable. 5 bomb hits.. I doubt he would had gotten the same results with torpedoes

The only explanation I can think of for this behaviour is that the AM strike came from a base without an Air HQ or without torpedo stock while the PM one came from a larger base - like Rangoon - that had the Air HQ within range.

I have never seen any randomizing of armament load for aircraft unless they run out of stock of torpedoes and part of the strike must be armed with bombs.

_____________________________

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 #: 1028
RE: Nov 18th: Kate strikes - 12/22/2015 11:42:31 AM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		Kates at AM and PM were the same squadron.
And Prester John mentioned plenty of torpedo supply

I have seen Dec 7th Pearl Harbor strikes with no torpedoes

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 12/22/2015 12:44:58 PM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 1029
RE: Nov 18th: Kate strikes - 12/22/2015 11:44:50 AM   
BBfanboy


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

ORIGINAL: morejeffs

Seeing original KB pilots die in vain is a truly glorious sight to behold...That...and masses of Betty/Nells going down in flams....

Agree with the sentiment, but Japan does have land-based Kate-equipped squadrons (are they Chutai or Datai ?). I don't recall any mention of carriers so I would suspect the land-based ones were the losers here.

Still a nice haul! No wonder Prester John is yelling!

_____________________________

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 morejeffs)
Post #: 1030
RE: Nov 18th: Kate strikes - 12/22/2015 11:47:15 AM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		We are in November 42, most early KB pilots are dead now
This was a land based squadron.. I got the name, but I will need to see the combat replay again, as I forgot it.

EDIT: I got 932 KuT-1
strange I cannot find it when starting a game as Japan maybe some squadron gets its name changed during the war

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 12/22/2015 1:27:48 PM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 1031
Nov 42 naval losses - 12/23/2015 1:18:55 AM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		While I wait... patiently wait... and keep waiting... and more waiting for the turn....

Lets review naval losses, I haven't updated them since August, so there is quite a lot of changes:



Always important to remember that Allied losses are accurate, while Japanese subject to FOW.
Also that I use unique "Categories" based on my personal preferences. "Destroyer" for example, includes any ship that is or was a destroyer or equivalent, including APDs, DEs, TBs, DMS
I might make some adjustments. Once DEs become more common, they should become a separate category for "Destroyer escort/ auxiliar" with all escort and support former destroyers. I am also thinking about moving midget submarines to "small craft"

Allied losses
The worst loss was very recent; a TF of CLs Caradoc and Capetown, escorted by DMS Elliot, APDs Fox, Paul Jones, Parrot, Sands were massacred by Japanese CAs near Prome
DE Talbot also lost quite recently, sunk while trying, unsuccessfully, to defend a supply TF at Cox's Bazaar
All 3 tankers lost by submarines, as well as AD Prairie and 16 cargo or transport ship
Another 23 cargo/ transport mostly small ships lost while doing very risky supply runs to either Darwin, Chittagong or Cox's Bazaar... the expendables
Then 5 AMs used as escort for risky supply runs... also expendables
Finally, 10 PT boats who valiantly defeated an attempt to naval bombard Calcutta.

Japan losses
Regrettably CVL Zuiho is "un-sunk"... I really thought it went down, but looks like this is a lucky ship
CVL Hosho is fully confirmed and I am confident that CVE Taiyo, after so many months, is also down

1st rate Cruisers: CA Mikuma is un-sunk, while CA Kumano is added... but notice I zeroed out victory points and tonnage. This because it received only one Mk14 torpedo and near Singapore.. it most likely got damaged, but I doubt it was enough to sink
2nd rate Cruisers: CL Kinu un-sunk, replaced by CL Kashii... not the best swap I would say CLs Kashima and CL Kiso are still in the list.. so they are most likely sunk

Destroyers :
DDs Hamakaze, Karukaya and Asakaze confirmed. the 1st two recently hit by Dauntless bombers after Hamakaze hit a mine. DD Azakaze sunk on a naval battle near Cox's Bazaar, hit by a British torpedo
DD Umikaze fought against cruisers on December 41. The last record was "heavy damage, heavy fires". The fact it just came back a year after kind of confirms the sinking
DDs Yugiri and Hasu sank on September near Chittagong. This was a ASW TF surprised by Allied cruisers... confirmed!
DD Hatakaze, APDs Nadakaze, Tsuga, Aoi, Hagi, DMS W-1 hit by submarine launched torpedos.. because of their small size, very good chances they went down
DD Akigumo un-sunk
So overall, this looks correct; 36 destroyers down

Submarines: This is just guesswork: 6 fleet, 1 short range, 3 midgets sunk. 3 fleet submarines un-sunk

Tankers: 1 AO, 1 TK hit by submarine launched torpedos... very uncertain. 1 AO un-sunk
Cargo/ Patrol: 8 xAKs, 4 PBs hit by submarine launched torpedoes.
10 xAKs hit by cruiser or destroyer guns, 2 by coastal guns... In most cases these are very old losses popping up after the end of FOW






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 12/23/2015 3:42:12 AM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 1032
Nov 42: where is the fleet? - 12/23/2015 2:36:53 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		While still waiting for the turn... this is the status of the Allied fleet




Noticed there are too many destroyers in the South Pacific, too few at Pearl Harbor... I will correct this soon

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 12/23/2015 3:41:08 PM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 1033
RE: Nov 42: where is the fleet? - 12/23/2015 3:08:16 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline 		You are in Nov. 42 and Maryland is repairing 1941 damage, so there must be overdue upgrades? The old BBs desperately need the radar and AA upgrades before going in harms way again.

If you think 210 day upgrades for Nevada and Oklahoma are long, take a peek at BB Tennessee et al for January 1943 - I think their upgrade goes 270 days!
It's worth it for the AA improvement but it does leave you short on bombardment ships for most of 1943.

_____________________________

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 #: 1034
RE: Nov 42: where is the fleet? - 12/23/2015 3:31:25 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


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

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

You are in Nov. 42 and Maryland is repairing 1941 damage, so there must be overdue upgrades? The old BBs desperately need the radar and AA upgrades before going in harms way again.

If you think 210 day upgrades for Nevada and Oklahoma are long, take a peek at BB Tennessee et al for January 1943 - I think their upgrade goes 270 days!
It's worth it for the AA improvement but it does leave you short on bombardment ships for most of 1943.

Maryland is coming online as up-to-date as possible
I updated it in January and November 42
January system damage was 5... and it already fully repaired in October. This because I had to take it out of shipyard to upgrade the carriers, and they have priority.. so for a few days, while the carriers were fixing their small float damage, Maryland fixed system damage on pierside
November upgrade damage is 2 system, and it will likely be the last to fix.

Regarding the long BB upgrades... the fact is I have them all idle, and because my zero losses at Pearl Harbor strike, I am more than willing to have ~4 on long term upgrade on a regular basis
EDIT: It actually works great; by the time the 2 Tennessee goes to the yard, I will have Arizona and Pennsylvania coming out




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 12/23/2015 4:42:53 PM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 1035
RE: Nov 42: where is the fleet? - 12/23/2015 6:08:05 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		I was doing some math, and by the time I go on the offensive in the Pacific (sometime late Q2/ early Q3). I should have:
- 8 Standard type battleships: 3 Colorado, 3 New Mexico, 2 Pennsylvania. With 4 on refit
- 6 Fast battleships: 2 North Carolinas, 2 South Dakotas, Prince of Wales and Massachusetts
- 8 Fleet carriers: 3 Yorktowns, Saratoga, Lexington, Wasp, Essex and Victorious
- 11 CVEs

I am so looking forward!

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 12/23/2015 7:57:19 PM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 1036
Nov 18th: Kate strikes (finally the turn) - 12/24/2015 12:56:29 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		And I got the turn! what a nice xmas gift!!

Allied losses update:
as you can see, 10 Hurricanes went down, some P-38s and bombers but those are from a different operation
My personal tally of Japanese losses are definitively more accurate, less optimistic





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 1037
RE: Nov 18th: Kate strikes (finally the turn) - 12/24/2015 1:00:29 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		Navy:
Low engine damage... which means they will all run full speed to Calcutta for emergency repairs
Priority will go to Hotspur as it has to leave theatre in the next 87 days




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 12/24/2015 2:00:48 PM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 1038
RE: Nov 18th: Kate strikes (finally the turn) - 12/24/2015 3:00:28 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline 		Full speed runs can be fatal to ships with high floatation damage and system damage over 20!
Full speed runs are also likely to give system damage which means two extra days in repair for each point of system damage on the cruisers.
Calcutta's shipyard isn't very big so it will not be able to service all those ships at once. Perhaps Quincy & Exeter could go to Colombo (if you own it) or Bombay?
Unless the ships are in extreme danger they should go at mission or cruise speed.

_____________________________

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 #: 1039
RE: Nov 18th: Kate strikes (finally the turn) - 12/24/2015 4:05:26 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		I agree that it is high risk, but necessary.. it is only for one day. They need to get out of there as there are many submarines prowling. Not to mention the big chances of more LBAs and/ or even the navy. He has several cruisers and a few CVLs CVEs.

As per repairs: they will all get their emergency fix at Calcutta. Exeter will get into the shipyard, the rest will repair system on pierside

Then they will most likely move to Colombo for full repair or withdrawal.
Birmingham and Hotspur won't repair float damage at all, they are too close to their withdraw date and they are not coming back... They will be Ike's problem soon

EDIT: All xAKLs except Haiyang will go to Chittagong, hopefully they will distract the submarines and LBAs!
xAKL Haiyang is too damaged and on fire... so it is also bait now. It will remain at Cox's Bazaar unloading supply

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 12/24/2015 5:47:32 PM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 1040
RE: Nov 18th: Kate strikes (finally the turn) - 12/25/2015 5:30:20 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		Time to start thinking on the 1st Allied offensive of 1943. Still early stages, but I want to put some ideas on paper:

By February 43, the Allied amphibious capabilities will be
- 3 LCI(L) each capable of carrying 1,200 troops and 900 cargo
- Around 18 APDs
- 2 useful AMCs that can't convert to LCI
- Around 20 LST

That means I could plan an invasion that is regiment-sized; 3 LCI + a few APDs can carry a Marine regiment. LSTs and APDs can deal with the supporting elements like amphibious tanks, tanks, pioneers, engineer equipment, base support

Going larger scale would require the use of AKs and APs. but I don't like the idea. Any invasion in early 43 will need to be quickly, hit and run.

Brigade size means I will need to pick a target that is not well protected. I am looking for bases that are defended by naval guards or special naval landing forces.
But then I need recon, which means I need to pick targets relatively close to the front. This works well because I also need speed and surprise.
I will write more on recon later, because I am in the middle of a nice re-organization of the few recon assets available.

The potentai candidates for this operation are:
- Santa Cruz Island
- Southern Salomons
- Gilberts
- Wake

Recon will be critical in picking the right one. I will actually pick 4 potential targets and set as objective for one Marine regiment each, this once recon gives me an idea of interesting targets.


< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 12/25/2015 6:46:03 PM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 1041
RE: Nov 18th: Kate strikes (finally the turn) - 12/25/2015 6:31:57 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline 		I guess Pt. Blair is too dangerous to be on your target list?

_____________________________

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 #: 1042
RE: Nov 18th: Kate strikes (finally the turn) - 12/25/2015 7:01:52 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


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

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I guess Pt. Blair is too dangerous to be on your target list?


I didn't think about Pt Blair... but the biggest challenge here is lack of recon... it is very far away from any Allied base.. And it is also a main base, basically his most important naval base on the Indian Ocean, and close to Rangoon, another big base.

Without recon, I don't know what kind of opposition I will face,

i would need the full Allied naval power to face it, certainly risky... the main bonus is that KB won't be there, with some luck he would rush his CVLs/ CVEs into a fight against the full Allied combo, and destroying a few CVLs are strategical gains, evem if the invasion fails


< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 12/25/2015 8:03:40 PM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 1043
RE: Nov 18th: Kate strikes (finally the turn) - 12/25/2015 7:26:42 PM   
IdahoNYer


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

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I guess Pt. Blair is too dangerous to be on your target list?


I didn't think about Pt Blair... but the biggest challenge here is lack of recon... it is very far away from any Allied base.. And it is also a main base, basically his most important naval base on the Indian Ocean, and close to Rangoon, another big base.

Without recon, I don't know what kind of opposition I will face,

i would need the full Allied naval power to face it, certainly risky... the main bonus is that KB won't be there, with some luck he would rush his CVLs/ CVEs into a fight against the full Allied combo, and destroying a few CVLs are strategical gains, evem if the invasion fails



Not being in range of LBA would indeed be pretty risky!!! What are you trying to accomplish with your first landing? Just starting on the road to Japan or an opportunity to defeat the IJN if he counter attacks? Targets within a heavy LBA umbrella can perhaps accomplish both...

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 1044
RE: Nov 18th: Kate strikes (finally the turn) - 12/25/2015 7:39:14 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		Objective is really first forays, gain some real estate, but gain lots of experience in amphibious operations. Experience that will be crucial for mid and late 43 when full escale invasions will be attempted. Increase Japanese losses is a good secondary objective. His losses, as you can see a few posts above, are minimal, destroyer excluded.
I am not planning to fight the KB under the uncertain conditions of a deep invasion. As you mentioned, LBA umbrella is a must, as it is to have naval search saturation and good recon. Ideally I grab a base quickly and by the time he is ready to send the KB, this is already fait accomplished, so if he wants it back then he will need to risk fighting under heavy odds

(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 1045
RE: Nov 18th: Kate strikes (finally the turn) - 12/25/2015 7:52:55 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		Another question that just came to mind

Base or dot-base?
as mentioned before, I will have quite a few LSTs... which means, in just a few turns I can unload all what is needed to build a base, including supply.
Lets say I pick an atoll with small stacking capability, something like Makin at 15K... If I disembark close to maximum stacking, which can be achived... then good luck Japan getting it back, as it lacks real amphibious capabilities!
lots of costly banzai shock attacks with no supply..

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 12/25/2015 8:54:21 PM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 1046
RE: Nov 18th: Kate strikes (finally the turn) - 12/25/2015 10:23:45 PM   
IdahoNYer


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

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Another question that just came to mind

Base or dot-base?
as mentioned before, I will have quite a few LSTs... which means, in just a few turns I can unload all what is needed to build a base, including supply.
Lets say I pick an atoll with small stacking capability, something like Makin at 15K... If I disembark close to maximum stacking, which can be achived... then good luck Japan getting it back, as it lacks real amphibious capabilities!
lots of costly banzai shock attacks with no supply..



Agree you can take it - can't wait for LSTs!!!

But the problem might become sustaining it - especially in the Central Pacific. Long way from LBA fighter cover. IJN can move in and isolate your troops. Apbarog's AAR has been good to see some challenges in an early Allied advance. Even with LBA support, the KB (and he's facing a degraded KB) can provide challenges once ashore. Although the cost hasn't been light, Apbarog's still driving forward - that's key.


(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 1047
RE: Nov 18th: Kate strikes (finally the turn) - 12/26/2015 3:16:44 AM   
jwolf

 

Posts: 2493
Joined: 12/3/2013
Status: offline 		Wake seems rather optimistic to me. I mean, maybe you could take it -- depending on what he's got there -- but I would guess you couldn't hold it. The South Pacific islands can, in principle, be part of a chain of advances with local support and much more sustainable IMHO.

(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 1048
RE: Nov 18th: Kate strikes (finally the turn) - 12/26/2015 1:17:15 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		Jwolf: I think Wake is almost abandoned by Japan, but still I rather not attack it... it is "a bridge to nowhere" kind of place, I am really more interested in the southern island chains

IdahoNYer: Naval bombing is a very valid risk, he can keep my dot-base pinned down with multiple bombings that will destroy my supply and make building very difficult

Also, thanks for pointing me to Apbarog's AAR, I just read his latest entries and I like how aggressive he is. There are very valid points I can take like for example:

The biggest thing I've learned is that in a contested area, which most are, it is very important to land as much as you can on that first day. This is difficult to do early in the war. Using an AP is much preferred over using an xAP. But there aren't many at this point, and it's a tough call to risk them knowing that they will upgrade to even better APAs in 1943.

His losses are certainly way too heavy, in battleships in particular. This ship category one of the few in which you don't get "flooded" by replacements later on. His offensive was launched in November 42, which contributed to losses as he had no real amphibious assets yet (LSTs are game changers). I plan to start when these are all available so we will see.
And even though his losses had being heavy and painful, as of today only at Horn Island he was completely defeated/ evicted.



< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 12/26/2015 6:22:09 PM >

(in reply to jwolf)
Post #: 1049
RE: Nov 18th: Kate strikes (finally the turn) - 12/26/2015 2:12:30 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		Prester John has certainly put some efforts in fortifying the Solomon sea... Other than Ndeni, this is a strong candidate for bypassing!
or better yet, to faint an offensive here and then strike somewhere else


I will have recon here soon... will be interesting to see what kind of land forces he has

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 12/26/2015 3:31:41 PM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 1050
Page:   <<   < prev  33 34 [35] 36 37   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> Nov 17th: Two IJN destroyers sunk Page: <<   < prev  33 34 [35] 36 37   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

0.922