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: JFB in charge of the USN???

 
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: JFB in charge of the USN??? Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: JFB in charge of the USN??? - 11/6/2017 8:14:10 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
DRAT! I...mean...well done!

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 181
RE: JFB in charge of the USN??? - 11/7/2017 4:27:07 AM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

I don't have the turn with me yet, but Lt.Cdr. E.V.St.J. Morgan, RN, has been awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for his gallantry during active operations against the enemy at sea:

quote:

Night Time Surface Combat, near Oosthaven at 46,97, Range 12,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
BB Nagato
BB Mutsu
BB Tosa, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 1
CL Jintsu
DD Asashio, Shell hits 1
DD Oshio
DD Michishio
DD Arashio

Allied Ships
DD Encounter, Shell hits 1

We have no word as to the shape HMS Encounter is in, but there are no reports of her sinking either.


Since there's no report of fires or heavy damage, I'm guessing that shell hit wasn't a 16-incher. (OK, it could ahve been a dud.)

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 182
RE: JFB in charge of the USN??? - 11/7/2017 11:34:22 AM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock
Since there's no report of fires or heavy damage, I'm guessing that shell hit wasn't a 16-incher. (OK, it could ahve been a dud.)

I now have the turn. It was not a dud, but it was not a 40cm either. She will survive:




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 183
RE: JFB in charge of the USN??? - 11/7/2017 1:18:38 PM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
January 2nd, 1942

Ok, the first month of the war is over, and it is time to react less and plan more. Not that I have enough to plan with yet, but at least some things are moving along. Here are a few thoughts:

Carriers

I did not lose any carriers last month, and now have:
- 4 USN CVs
- 2 USN CLVs
- 2 USN CVEs
- 1 HMS CV
- 1 HMS CVL
- 1 HMAS CAV
- 1 HMNZS CAV

USN CV air groups have been changed to 45 fighters and 45 dive bombers until May. There are also one Tangier and two Kittyhawk CVE conversions (plus an additional one of each) that will begin this month. While those conversions are taking place, their air units will train and perhaps see combat if need be.

There will not be any additional carriers in a bit over two months, so I need to take good care of the ones I've got.

Capital Ships

No big boys sunk in Pearl Harbour, and only BC Renown sunk elsewhere. BB Warspite will be ready in 3 days, while BB Oklahoma, Mississippi and Colorado will be ready within the month. Those boys are slow, but at least I will have the possibility of naval bombardment with big guns... wherever the IJN is not, of course.

Damaged BB Prince of Wales and BC Repulse are sailing toward repairs. the PoW will be refit with added AA while at it.

Cruisers

The five Omaha CLAA conversions have begun, and will be ready in four months. Meanwhile, no cruisers have been lost, which is good, as I feel a definite lack of cruisers. The one cruiser damaged at Pearl, CA San Francisco, will be fully repaired in 4 days.

Two USN CAs and the infamous USN Boise are now the main surface combatants in the DEI.

Destroyers

January's DD upgrades are all underway, with one exception: DD Blue, which was damaged at Pearl, will now enter refit, as it still had much damage not yet repaired. She will be ready in two weeks, though.

The other damaged DD, HMS Express, is sailing toward a safe yard now. Only HMS Scout has been lost so far.

APDs

I ordered all the DD to APD conversions I could, as quickly as I could. Thus, 16 APDs will be ready in 2 days, with three more in 10 days and 14 more in 18 days. That will give me a total of 34 APDs with an ASW value of 6 to escort stuff with.

APs and xAPs

Out of the 14 APs that can be converted to APAs in 1943, 12 are now safely at port. The other 2 will join them as soon as they can, if they can. All will be used for off map troop transport between the East Coast and Cape Town.

27 Dominion Troop class xAPs and 56 Pacific Troop class xAPs are in different stages of conversion and will be tasked with moving troops basically everywhere. 57 of them will be ready in one day. 7 Pacific class and 9 Dominion class ships are still sailing towards port so that they can be refit too.

AKs and xAKs

Everything that sails at 12 knots or slower has been sent to the East Coast. Even the small and slow cargo ships will pull their weight, shipping fuel to Cape Town. Since movement between off map bases does not consume fuel, they will at least add to the totals, even if just a little bit. The one exception is the 12-kt ships that can be converted to AKEs. Those are being converted and kept on-map.

The 16-kt AKs are doing the West Coast to the Pacific routes at this point. The 17-kt xAKs are split between the West Coast and the Indian Ocean. The 14-kt xAKs are mainly hauling supply from Abadan to India and transporting heavy equipment from Aden and Cape Town into India and SE Asia.

AOs and TKs

In a previous version of this mod, the 18-kt USN AOs could be converted to CVEs. That is not the case in this version, so there is a healthy number of large, fast oilers that I must keep safe. I have 5 at this point, and they can hold over 70k fuel between them. There are also three 14-kt AOs which for the time being are helping the 14-kt TKs haul fuel around, and four 13-kt AOs, which have been assigned to North Pacific operations.

The sixteen 16-kt TKs have been tasked with moving fuel from the West Coast to the Pacific. The 14-kt TKs will do the same from Abadan to India and Cape Town to Australia.

All ships sailing at 12 knots or slower are being assigned to the East Coast to Cape Town route.

Subs

Besides the subs lost in Manila during the initial attack, only two other subs will probably be lost in the next few days. They are both desperately trying to get repaired in Manila before the city falls, as they are far too damaged to sail as they are. Maybe a few more days in the shipyard will make a difference. Again, maybe not.

The rest of the submarine fleet is in decent shape, patrolling choke points in DEI waters, the Solomons and the SE Asian coast. They will transfer to a more strategic mission once the Philippines and the DEI are lost.

< Message edited by Kitakami -- 11/7/2017 1:21:13 PM >


_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 184
RE: JFB in charge of the USN??? - 11/7/2017 2:02:14 PM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
Ok... Now to the turn.

No naval losses for the Allies, which is good. Something tells me the same is not true for the Japanese, as the three squadrons of Banshees scored multiple hits on transports. Sadly, all the torpedo squadrons went for the cruisers, and thus achieved nothing but a few getting destroyed.

Pilot losses were light compared to what they could have been, and I am thankful for that.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Kitakami -- 11/7/2017 2:12:35 PM >


_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 185
RE: JFB in charge of the USN??? - 11/7/2017 2:13:55 PM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
Air losses shifted in favour of Japan, but not too much. If only the torpedo bombers had gone for the transports and not for the cruisers...



Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Kitakami -- 11/7/2017 2:14:36 PM >


_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 186
RE: JFB in charge of the USN??? - 11/7/2017 2:15:46 PM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
The accumulated air losses are still very much in my favour, though, considering the stage we are at.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 187
RE: JFB in charge of the USN??? - 11/7/2017 3:34:25 PM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
And now, to the crux of the matter: what do I do with Palembang? I made a fateful decision a number of turns ago. I should have landed the 18th British Inf Div in Oosthaven, accepting the loss of the transports and escort. I did not, and they will not reach Palembang in time, at least not in numbers that matter. That is, unless I somehow can get my bombers through and bomb the Japanese 4th Inf Div into ineffectiveness for a turn or two.

The question is... can it be done? And if so, how?

This is what I have to work with:

Land:

154 AV in Palembang itself (including 2 AA and 1 Recce units), behind 1.59 forts.
137 AV 30 miles from Palembang.
141 AV 88 miles from Palembang.
142 AV 98 miles from Palembang.

Air (ready-n/ready-reserve):

1 Hurricane Sqdn in Singapore (16-0-7 planes).
2 Buffalo Sqdns in Singapore (32-1-7 planes).
2 Buffalo Sqdns in Palembang (34-5-3 planes).
3 D-339D Sqdns in Batavia (10-18-0 planes)
1 75A-7 Hawk Sqdn in Soerbaja (12-1-3 planes).
1 CW-21B Demon Sqdn in Soerbaja (12-1-4 planes).
1 P-40E Sqdn in Soerbaja (17-5-0 planes).

1 Blenheim IV Sqdn in Singapore (16-0-4 planes).
2 Hudson I Sqdns in Singapore (24-0-8 planes).
7 139WH-3 Sqdns in Batavia (73-1-27 planes).
2 CW-22 Falcon Sqdns in Bandoeng (18-0-0 planes).

3 A-24 Banshee Sqdns in Batavia (48-1-14 planes).

2 Vildebeest III Sqdns in Singapore (24-0-10 planes).

There are some other air units in the area, but they will not be of much use (either training, damaged, out of planes, etc.).

Please note that there is no land-based air in the vicinity.

So, I humbly ask for your opinion. Should I try? Or should I not? And if I do try, how do I handle the air side of things? Man! I am used to sweep with Zeroes, not having to oppose them :)

Thanks all!



Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Kitakami -- 11/7/2017 3:35:21 PM >


_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 188
RE: JFB in charge of the USN??? - 11/7/2017 3:37:45 PM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
Oh, I forgot to add enemy ships in Palembang:




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 189
RE: JFB in charge of the USN??? - 11/7/2017 3:48:29 PM   
MakeeLearn


Posts: 4278
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline

Everyday you hold Palembang is day that Japan is denied it's oil/fuel. A hard fought battle there may even damage the oil/refineries costing Japan more when they do take it. As Allies I would give greater importance to Palembang than to Singapore. Air wise... Cap and hit his ships

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 190
RE: JFB in charge of the USN??? - 11/7/2017 7:40:45 PM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
The following bases were lost last turn: Batangas, Iba, Babuyan, Malacca, Buin, Gasmata, Hollandia, Morotai, Serasan, and Malaybalay. Of those, it is Batangas and Iba that have me nervous, even though most fighting strength is concentrated in Manila by now.

Naval losses were light, although a fleeing TK was lost to BB Tosa and company. It is ironit that if I had sent the TK to Soerbaja, nothing would have happened to it.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Kitakami -- 11/7/2017 7:46:39 PM >


_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to MakeeLearn)
Post #: 191
RE: JFB in charge of the USN??? - 11/8/2017 1:11:53 AM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
Ok...

Threw everything I have at Palembang. CAP, sweeps, level bombers, torpedo bombers, escorts... the works! If I lose the base, it will not be for a lack of trying.

Will let you know when I know what happened.

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 192
RE: JFB in charge of the USN??? - 11/8/2017 2:33:02 AM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
Ok... I only have the combat report, but...

Falken wised up, and started sweeping. My fighter losses this turn must have been 3-4 times his. That feels a bit more normal, even if it is against me.

As for Palembang... well... first, Nagato and Mutsu bombarded Batavia.

quote:

Night Naval bombardment of Batavia at 49,98 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
139WH-3: 93 damaged
139WH-3: 9 destroyed on ground
B-339D: 6 damaged
B-339D: 2 destroyed on ground
A-24 Banshee: 7 damaged
A-24 Banshee: 2 destroyed on ground

8 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
BB Mutsu
BB Nagato
CL Jintsu
DD Oshio
DD Asashio

Allied ground losses:
229 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 19 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 28 (8 destroyed, 20 disabled)

Airbase hits 9
Airbase supply hits 3
Runway hits 55

And then, after much Allied bombing of Palembang, came the land combat. At least there was no way that Falken was going to try to bombard Singapore, the base of the British and Australian bombers.

quote:

Ground combat at Palembang (48,91)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 18855 troops, 153 guns, 17 vehicles, Assault Value = 483

Defending force 7224 troops, 69 guns, 47 vehicles, Assault Value = 166

Japanese adjusted assault: 139

Allied adjusted defense: 232

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 1)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), preparation(-), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
1279 casualties reported
Squads: 4 destroyed, 99 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 11 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 5 disabled
Guns lost 18 (2 destroyed, 16 disabled)
Vehicles lost 3 (1 destroyed, 2 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
296 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 43 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 10 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Assaulting units:
4th Division
4th Ind.Mixed Regiment
III/124th Infantry Battalion
2nd Fleet
7th JAAF AF Coy
18th JNAF AF Unit
85th JAAF AF Coy

Defending units:
W Borneo KNIL Battalion
Lahat Cdo
Palembang Cdo
Padang Cdo
251st Recce Battalion
Djambi Cdo
Riouw Cdo /1
Palembang ML Base Force
223 Group RAF
2nd HK&S Heavy AA Regiment
PBg-Ld AA Afd
113th RAF Adv Base Force


I take anything I can get. At least one more turn, and the first reinforcement brigade has arrived at Palembang. If the second one can arrive next turn, and the third one one turn after that, I may be there a bit longer than my esteemed opponent planed... and the Japanese 4th Inf Div will not be in shape to invade anything decently defended for a while.

I will write more when I know how things stand.

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 193
RE: JFB in charge of the USN??? - 11/8/2017 10:57:20 AM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
Nice work at Palembang. Looks like you've held it now and can just build off of that.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 194
RE: JFB in charge of the USN??? - 11/8/2017 5:02:28 PM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
Nice work at Palembang. Looks like you've held it now and can just build off of that.

Thanks, obvert. To tell you the truth, I did not expect to be able to hold on to it. But with 100+ Japanese infantry squads destroyed/disabled, and 18 artillery pieces following suit, I can breathe a bit easier now. This was the result of the second day's combat:

quote:

Ground combat at Palembang (48,91)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 4179 troops, 21 guns, 11 vehicles, Assault Value = 274

Defending force 22768 troops, 151 guns, 18 vehicles, Assault Value = 408

Japanese ground losses:
23 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Assaulting units:
Lahat Cdo
Padang Cdo
W Borneo KNIL Battalion
Palembang Cdo
251st Recce Battalion
54th British Brigade
Djambi Cdo
Riouw Cdo /1
PBg-Ld AA Afd
Palembang ML Base Force
223 Group RAF
2nd HK&S Heavy AA Regiment
113th RAF Adv Base Force

Defending units:
4th Division
4th Ind.Mixed Regiment
III/124th Infantry Battalion
7th JAAF AF Coy
18th JNAF AF Unit
2nd Fleet
85th JAAF AF Coy

Note that the 54th British Bde has arrived. If a second brigade arrives this coming turn, Falken will have to reinforce if he wants to take Palembang any time soon.



_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 195
RE: JFB in charge of the USN??? - 11/9/2017 11:10:44 PM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
Jan 4th, 1942

The big news is, of course, that I somehow held on to Palembang. Not without a price however, as you will see below. Still, I am in a bit better position than last turn, and if I can somehow not lose Palembang until the rest of the 18th British Inf Div arrives, I will have thrown a wrench into my esteemed opponent's proverbial gearbox.

First, naval losses. Mines do work once in a while, and two Japanese DDs hit a couple. They are reported as sunk, but that may be FOW. At least they are both out of commission for a bit.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 196
RE: JFB in charge of the USN??? - 11/9/2017 11:14:33 PM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
The price was paid with pilots and planes. Last turn had the highest death rate so far.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 197
RE: JFB in charge of the USN??? - 11/9/2017 11:17:55 PM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
Air losses were about 2-1 in Japan's favor. The number of A6M2s lost is something I had not expected, but the fighter loss ratio in the air was over 2-1. Those Zero sweeps sure are nasty.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Kitakami -- 11/9/2017 11:19:06 PM >


_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 198
RE: JFB in charge of the USN??? - 11/9/2017 11:18:17 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
Don't forget regardless of ship size, any hit by a exploding torpedo or mine will show up on sunk list.

KUDOS on Palembang!!

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 199
RE: JFB in charge of the USN??? - 11/9/2017 11:19:50 PM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
Thanks! To tell you the truth, I did not think it would go well :)

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 200
RE: JFB in charge of the USN??? - 11/9/2017 11:22:11 PM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
Accumulated air losses are still good. I just hope that Japanese naval fighter pilots are dying along with their planes. The Allied bombers destroyed on the ground were courtesy of Nagato and Mutsu bombarding Batavia on the first night. I don't see them around, so I guess they sailed back to port to rearm and refuel.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Kitakami -- 11/9/2017 11:24:25 PM >


_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 201
RE: JFB in charge of the USN??? - 11/9/2017 11:47:23 PM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
As for Palembang, the situation is interesting. In the last few days, between bombing, artillery and combat, the accumulated results for Japan are:

Squads: 7 destroyed, 183 disabled.
Non-combat: 6 destroyed, 87 disabled.
Guns: 2 destroyed, 16 disabled.
Vehicles: 3 destroyed, 10 disabled.

I have an AV of 266, with 37 engineers. In the next 2 turns, if I do not lose the base, I will add 140+ per turn. There is also an additional AAA unit moving towards Palembang.

We will see.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 202
RE: JFB in charge of the USN??? - 11/9/2017 11:55:40 PM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
Last turn I lost Dinagat, Moulmein and Abetama. I also got Kluong back, as Japan vacated it.

In Moulmein, my esteemed opponent has 5800 troops and 40 guns in 4 units. Across the river 2 under strength Bns. face them, but in Pegu the 17th Indian Div and 1st Burma Div are patiently waiting.

I did not pay attention to China for a few turns, and I might lose Tsiatso because of it. Trying to do damage control, but it might be too late.

Port Moresby has been reinforced as PPs allow, and the first US Inf Rgt. has been bought out for deployment to India. 5 more are in queue.

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 203
RE: JFB in charge of the USN??? - 11/10/2017 1:49:15 AM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
Ok... got the combat report back. Getting mauled in the air, but twice I got a number of Betties, which is always nice. I am running out of fighters, though! Also, Batavia is being shut down by rather efficient A6M2s and B5N2s.

On land, the story is quite different, though. My esteemed opponents words were: "You are smart my friend. You have me stalled on several fronts, and I'll need to do some thinking quick before it gets too late. My troop losses are getting heavy, and I have to decide what to do next. My current thinking is you have a lot of troops in places where they normally wouldn't be, so... it means other places might be good areas to umm...... well... we'll see" (edited for format).

Anyway, this is the gist of what happened:

Palembang (both were Japanese deliberate attacks)

Day 1:
Japanese ground losses:
* 1339 casualties reported
** Squads: 20 destroyed, 96 disabled
** Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 11 disabled
** Engineers: 2 destroyed, 11 disabled
** Guns lost 17 (1 destroyed, 16 disabled)
** Vehicles lost 5 (4 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Allied ground losses:
* 569 casualties reported
** Squads: 5 destroyed, 37 disabled
** Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
** Engineers: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled

Day 2: (after the second British brigade arrives)
Japanese ground losses:
* 1804 casualties reported
** Squads: 71 destroyed, 63 disabled
** Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 11 disabled
** Engineers: 2 destroyed, 9 disabled
** Guns lost 18 (6 destroyed, 12 disabled)
** Vehicles lost 3 (3 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Allied ground losses:
* 279 casualties reported
** Squads: 10 destroyed, 13 disabled
** Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
** Engineers: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
** Guns lost 4 (1 destroyed, 3 disabled)

Manila (both were Japanese bombardments)

Day 1:
Japanese ground losses:
* 227 casualties reported
** Squads: 2 destroyed, 18 disabled
** Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
** Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
** Guns lost 10 (7 destroyed, 3 disabled)
** Vehicles lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)

Day 2:
Japanese ground losses:
* 182 casualties reported
** Squads: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
** Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
** Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
** Guns lost 12 (5 destroyed, 7 disabled)
** Vehicles lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Allied ground losses:
* 8 casualties reported
** Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
** Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
** Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Wenchow:

Day 1:
Japanese ground losses:
* 1470 casualties reported
** Squads: 7 destroyed, 141 disabled
** Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 26 disabled
** Engineers: 0 destroyed, 10 disabled
Allied ground losses:
* 213 casualties reported
** Squads: 1 destroyed, 18 disabled
** Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 5 disabled
** Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Chengchow:

Day 1:
Japanese ground losses:
* 5172 casualties reported
** Squads: 14 destroyed, 508 disabled
** Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 43 disabled
** Engineers: 2 destroyed, 42 disabled
Allied ground losses:
* 1851 casualties reported
** Squads: 28 destroyed, 143 disabled
** Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 60 disabled
** Engineers: 1 destroyed, 12 disabled

Tsiaotso:

Day 1:
Japanese ground losses:
* 139 casualties reported
** Squads: 0 destroyed, 16 disabled
** Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
** Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Allied ground losses:
* 405 casualties reported
** Squads: 11 destroyed, 35 disabled
** Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
** Engineers: 3 destroyed, 2 disabled

Day 2: (after Chinese reinforcements arrived; otherwise I think it would have been lost)
Japanese ground losses:
* 715 casualties reported
** Squads: 2 destroyed, 99 disabled
** Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
** Engineers: 1 destroyed, 11 disabled
Allied ground losses:
* 286 casualties reported
** Squads: 6 destroyed, 15 disabled
** Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
** Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

In Cagayan and Clark Field I am slowly losing the battle. In the first because of lack of supply, and in the second because most units are already in Manila. In Ichang it is a stalemate. Should I even be bombarding?

All in all, I can't complain. The land results were too good.

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 204
RE: JFB in charge of the USN??? - 11/10/2017 3:07:02 AM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

Palembang (both were Japanese deliberate attacks)

Day 1:
Japanese ground losses:
* 1339 casualties reported
** Squads: 20 destroyed, 96 disabled
** Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 11 disabled
** Engineers: 2 destroyed, 11 disabled
** Guns lost 17 (1 destroyed, 16 disabled)
** Vehicles lost 5 (4 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Allied ground losses:
* 569 casualties reported
** Squads: 5 destroyed, 37 disabled
** Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
** Engineers: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled

Day 2: (after the second British brigade arrives)
Japanese ground losses:
* 1804 casualties reported
** Squads: 71 destroyed, 63 disabled
** Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 11 disabled
** Engineers: 2 destroyed, 9 disabled
** Guns lost 18 (6 destroyed, 12 disabled)
** Vehicles lost 3 (3 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Allied ground losses:
* 279 casualties reported
** Squads: 10 destroyed, 13 disabled
** Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
** Engineers: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
** Guns lost 4 (1 destroyed, 3 disabled)


Excellent! Falken is going to need a bigger stick!

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 205
RE: JFB in charge of the USN??? - 11/10/2017 8:28:02 AM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
Do you know you can use PP to purchase more fighters?

Allied Aircraft Purchase Guide

General The following is a description of the Allied Aircraft Purchase (AAP) system and how to use it. This system was developed as a way to allow the Allied player to exchange Political Points (PPs) for additional airframes, granting a degree of flexibility in the face of a changing theatre.

The Bases The system adds 5 new ‘non-map’ bases, completely removed from play, which exist purely to store the purchasable squadrons. They are kept at these bases to ensure that they are not accidentally used or moved by the player. The 5 bases are split between USAAF, USN/USMC, British/Indian, Commonwealth and Minor (China & Dutch) nationalities. The bases are located to the east of the continental US.
These bases cannot be accessed by clicking on them and instead the steps described below must be used to access them and their air groups.
Air Groups corresponding to the bases nationality will arrive throughout the war. To access the bases, use the ‘Bases’ list at the top of the game interface (the white star on a green background) to open a list of bases in the game. The ‘purchase’ bases have their names enclosed by round brackets, making them easy to find at the top of the bases list.


You can access the air groups by clicking on the base in this list, and then going to the ‘air groups at this base’ list.



Alternatively, simply going to the ‘land based air groups’ list from the main interface (the plane icon on the green background) will also let you find these air groups, as they also have their names enclosed in round brackets, making them easy to find at the top of the air group list.

The Air Groups Each of the purchasable air groups falls into one of 4 categories, depending on the type and number of airframes and when they arrive. These categories are;
- Reserve, representing obsolete or second rate aircraft already out of production. Abbreviated RES or R. - Additional, representing aircraft in production and available to the Pacific theatre. Abbreviated ADD or A. - Divert, representing aircraft in production mainly for other theatres than the Pacific. Abbreviated DIV or D. - Prototype/Preproduction, for limited aircraft available before large scale production. Abbreviated PRT or P.

This classification forms part of the air group name, with the abbreviated designation at the end. USAAF and USN/MC air groups use the longer abbreviation, and British/Commonwealth ones use the short one.

Therefore a (P-40E ADD) would designate additional P-40Es for purchase. Likewise, a (B-17E DIV) would represent B17E airframes diverted from the ETO.



In addition, each squadron has a ‘release cost’, which is listed as part of the group commander’s name. In the case of the P-40B squadron above, this is 100PP. This is the amount of PPs that the Allied player must pay to release the aircraft from this unit (in this case 12 P-40Bs).










To release a squadron, the Allied player simply changes the ‘##PP Release’ leader to a regular one, in the process paying (approximately) the stated number of PPs.








After this is done, to release the airframes to the pool, the Allied player ‘disbands’ the squadron, telling it not to reform. This results in the 12 P40Bs being placed into the aircraft replacement pool, and the ‘purchasable’ squadron is completely removed from play.

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 206
RE: JFB in charge of the USN??? - 11/10/2017 11:59:57 AM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants
Do you know you can use PP to purchase more fighters?

Yes. Sadly so far there are only two groups I'd purchase. Take a look:
I am short on PPs right now. but might purchase the P-40Bs in a turn or two.



Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Kitakami -- 11/10/2017 12:06:25 PM >


_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 207
RE: JFB in charge of the USN??? - 11/11/2017 12:46:26 AM   
Dirtnap86


Posts: 95
Joined: 10/3/2016
Status: offline
The Airacobra is a pretty good low level fighter, if you really need fighters. Stack your Buffalo Is,B-339s, or P40s around 15k and set the P39s to 10k. The P39 performs well in the low layer cap role.

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 208
RE: JFB in charge of the USN??? - 11/11/2017 6:52:21 PM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dirtnap86
The Airacobra is a pretty good low level fighter, if you really need fighters. Stack your Buffalo Is,B-339s, or P40s around 15k and set the P39s to 10k. The P39 performs well in the low layer cap role.

Thanks for the info. Not used to the Allied planes yet. Will purchase them then!


_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to Dirtnap86)
Post #: 209
RE: JFB in charge of the USN??? - 11/11/2017 7:07:37 PM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
Jan 6, 1942

Last turn was very decent, except in the air. I am losing the air war as my esteemed opponent started sweeping and bombing bases. To be expected, and I am thankful for the previous respite, as it allowed me to rack up some air kills.

Cam Ranh Bay is now a level-7 port, which means it can now reload torpedoes, IIRC.

I lost Oroquieta, Kluong, Port Dickson and Sambas. I also lost CM Ogala and DM Montgommery to an enterprising IJN sub SW of Pearl. On the good side, there are now three CVE conversions going on in the West Coast.

Pilot losses were once again heavy. I am training lots of pilots of course, and not only in the training squadrons, but these losses hurt.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 210
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: JFB in charge of the USN??? Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   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

0.875