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: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

 
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: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) Page: <<   < prev  111 112 113 114 [115]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/21/2022 11:43:01 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Burma






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3421
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/21/2022 2:54:47 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Will attempt this expansion with flying boats, ssts and perhaps very small merchant shipping. I doubt Japan cooperates as well.







That is an oversight/mistake by your opponent.....as the Empire you should never leave all those empty bases in Allied control, even if you don't intend to use them, for this exact reason.

It's a bunch of clicking but otherwise no big deal to send an SNLF Company around to take all the dots. Not sure why NJP72 didn't do that

_____________________________


(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3422
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/21/2022 4:25:07 PM   
BBfanboy


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

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Resolution & Ramillies can steam at 2 hexes a day...wondering about sending one to the East Coast for repairs.






Already damaged ships can founder off-map, so I think Ramilles is too damaged to send on to EUSA. Making it to CT was risk enough. OTOH, by 1943 I found that I did not need the SY in CT for repairs as much as upgrades. And since most upgrades allow you to take the ship out of the SY as soon as it starts, Ramilles can reside there without affecting too much. I am also guessing that you won't be using the RN aggressively in the IO for at least 3 months.

_____________________________

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 Lowpe)
Post #: 3423
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/21/2022 7:57:57 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

That is an oversight/mistake by your opponent.....as the Empire you should never leave all those empty bases in Allied control, even if you don't intend to use them, for this exact reason.

It's a bunch of clicking but otherwise no big deal to send an SNLF Company around to take all the dots. Not sure why NJP72 didn't do that


Allied bases are all over...been thinking about trying to sneak something further inside the perimeter.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 3424
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/21/2022 7:59:00 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Already damaged ships can founder off-map, so I think Ramilles is too damaged to send on to EUSA. Making it to CT was risk enough. OTOH, by 1943 I found that I did not need the SY in CT for repairs as much as upgrades. And since most upgrades allow you to take the ship out of the SY as soon as it starts, Ramilles can reside there without affecting too much. I am also guessing that you won't be using the RN aggressively in the IO for at least 3 months.


I am going to send Resolution to the East Coast.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 3425
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/21/2022 11:00:14 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
That is an oversight/mistake by your opponent.....as the Empire you should never leave all those empty bases in Allied control, even if you don't intend to use them, for this exact reason.

It's a bunch of clicking but otherwise no big deal to send an SNLF Company around to take all the dots. Not sure why NJP72 didn't do that

Well, building them up would certainly alert Japan, and you can't put a garrison on each one to prevent landings. Sneaky naval search dot bases on the other hand...

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 3426
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/22/2022 11:45:58 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Sept 26, 1942


We spotted 8 IJN destroyers heading for Marcus...where our AP and xAP were unloading coastal guns and supplies....with only two destroyers (clemson class too) for defense...

So I put the least aggressive commanders in place and set them to run interference....while some ships disbanded in port (likely a mistake) while others fled.

Plus I sent the Gamble in to lay a minefield...hoping for an 2nd phase movement into the base...

Our merchant shipping fled...some reacting but managed to avoid combat so far...







Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 2/22/2022 11:46:57 AM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3427
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/22/2022 11:48:06 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Gamble appeared too early...and fought 2 engagements. This first one she did okay...but then was nailed hard in the 2nd...Gamble founders during the morning hours 45 miles north of Marcus Island.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3428
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/22/2022 11:50:32 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
2nd Marine Air Wing put together this attack...of interest here is the P40s are flying close escort (i.e. the altitude is identical to the SBDs) while the F4F are flying high escort.

They all coordinated...




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3429
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/22/2022 11:57:15 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Our SBDs target a heavy cruiser and light cruiser...but miss. Putting the F4Fs at a higher altitude was most likely a mistake as the Japanese were able to penetrate the fighter screen and get at the SBDs before the attack. A 2nd attack in the afternoon was ill advised...

Meanwhile some of the KB shows up...nailing a confused AK that had been torpedoed by a midget the night before.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3430
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/22/2022 12:09:04 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
The tank army of Japan attacks...we have got 6 Stuarts there!

Ground combat at 78,51 (near Chihkiang)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 24459 troops, 411 guns, 1332 vehicles, Assault Value = 977

Defending force 30342 troops, 102 guns, 29 vehicles, Assault Value = 832

Japanese adjusted assault: 671

Allied adjusted defense: 2158

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 3

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

Japanese ground losses:
802 casualties reported
Squads: 4 destroyed, 126 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 22 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 17 disabled
Vehicles lost 32 (1 destroyed, 31 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
582 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 55 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Guns lost 4 (1 destroyed, 3 disabled)

Assaulting units:
1st Ind.Mixed Brigade
17th Tank Regiment
2nd Tank Division
1st Tank Division
Guards Tank Division
12th Army
6th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion

Defending units:
43rd Cavalry Regiment
20th Chinese Corps
86th Chinese Corps
50th Chinese Corps
5th Chinese Cavalry Corps
4th Chinese/A Corps



(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3431
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/22/2022 12:11:21 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
China, the attacks will continue till when?






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3432
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/22/2022 12:12:57 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Japan throwing the kitchen sink at Lashio and surrounding areas...




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3433
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/22/2022 12:17:19 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
It is getting scary around Lashio...

Ground combat at Lashio (62,46)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 32579 troops, 435 guns, 222 vehicles, Assault Value = 837

Defending force 21377 troops, 143 guns, 170 vehicles, Assault Value = 502

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 0

Japanese adjusted assault: 430

Allied adjusted defense: 325

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 0

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
818 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 137 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 8 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 11 disabled
Vehicles lost 3 (1 destroyed, 2 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
392 casualties reported
Squads: 41 destroyed, 3 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 10 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Guns lost 5 (1 destroyed, 4 disabled)
Vehicles lost 18 (13 destroyed, 5 disabled)

Assaulting units:
22nd Division
18th Division
5th Amphibious Brigade
18th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
3rd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
9th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
2nd Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
14th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
8th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
3rd Medium Field Artillery Regiment
21st Medium Field Artillery Battalion

Defending units:
75th Indian Brigade
45th Indian Brigade
254th Armoured Brigade
6th Chinese Corps /1
1st Burma Auxiliary AA Regiment
102nd RAF Base Force
Burma Corps
103rd RAF Base Force




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3434
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/22/2022 12:21:09 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Airacobras ran into a heavy defense over Burma...

Tough day for transports...






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3435
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/22/2022 12:27:37 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
What low aggression gets you!




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3436
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/22/2022 12:49:29 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
So many attacks in China...big map warning!

Large concentration of shipping at Akyab...transports, LSD, 4 BB, 2 BC, 5 CL...I guess they will bombard my forces when they arrive at Cox's should I do that...






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3437
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/22/2022 1:01:47 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
I have the forces to really trash this group here...but I have avoided conflict, first waiting for the moonlight to improve (which it has) and fear of the KB pouncing.

Well, now I know where the KB mostly is....

but I will still avoid a clash as my 40mm upgrades go thru...they are potent tagging weapons in any night encounter. I well recall how the USN improves in night fighting and it isn't just experience, the ship upgrades are wonderful.

Given my coordinated strike, Japan might pull back...or given the results they might continue to dither. Putting those Wildcats on high escort was a big mistake. They were at 29K.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 2/22/2022 1:03:10 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3438
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/23/2022 12:45:09 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
September 27, 1942

Japan attacks attempting to isolate Lashio...

Ground combat at Lashio (62,46)

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 31564 troops, 435 guns, 221 vehicles, Assault Value = 729

Defending force 21982 troops, 142 guns, 159 vehicles, Assault Value = 509

Japanese adjusted assault: 463

Allied adjusted defense: 529

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

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

Japanese ground losses:
3974 casualties reported
Squads: 40 destroyed, 168 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 19 disabled
Engineers: 3 destroyed, 30 disabled
Vehicles lost 9 (1 destroyed, 8 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
119 casualties reported
Squads: 9 destroyed, 11 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 9 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 3 (3 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Vehicles lost 32 (32 destroyed, 0 disabled)

and more attacks across a broad front in China...




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3439
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/23/2022 2:35:50 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
The big attack due west on the road from Changteh, this is the IJA artillery attack and last week it is where we held against the massed Tank Divisions:

Ground combat at 80,50 (near Changteh)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 27803 troops, 403 guns, 285 vehicles, Assault Value = 656

Defending force 45927 troops, 230 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1044

Japanese adjusted assault: 540

Allied adjusted defense: 1981

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 3

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
902 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 44 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 7 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 10 disabled

Allied ground losses:
401 casualties reported
Squads: 4 destroyed, 41 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 6 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 10 (2 destroyed, 8 disabled)

Assaulting units:
104th Division
27th Division
Tonei Hvy Gun Regiment
2nd Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
5th Ind.Hvy.Art Battalion
13th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
7th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
4th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
11th Army
15th Ind.Medium Field Artillery Regiment
8th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
2nd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
11th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
14th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
13th Ind.Hvy.Art Battalion

Defending units:
48th Chinese Corps
2nd Chinese Corps
70th Chinese Corps
14th Chinese Corps
8th Route Army
20th Indian Mountain Gun Regiment

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3440
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/23/2022 2:36:40 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
This is the IJA Tank Division attack:


Ground combat at 78,51 (near Chihkiang)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 23448 troops, 411 guns, 1331 vehicles, Assault Value = 864

Defending force 30061 troops, 104 guns, 29 vehicles, Assault Value = 794

Japanese adjusted assault: 334

Allied adjusted defense: 1327

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 3

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

Japanese ground losses:
717 casualties reported
Squads: 27 destroyed, 88 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 25 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 15 disabled
Guns lost 13 (1 destroyed, 12 disabled)
Vehicles lost 30 (6 destroyed, 24 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
623 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 53 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 8 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled

Assaulting units:
2nd Tank Division
1st Ind.Mixed Brigade
1st Tank Division
17th Tank Regiment
Guards Tank Division
12th Army
6th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion

Defending units:
20th Chinese Corps
86th Chinese Corps
43rd Cavalry Regiment
5th Chinese Cavalry Corps
50th Chinese Corps
4th Chinese/A Corps
20th Artillery Regiment

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3441
Page:   <<   < prev  111 112 113 114 [115]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) Page: <<   < prev  111 112 113 114 [115]
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

0.734