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  43 44 [45] 46 47   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/23/2021 8:37:02 AM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Okay, I understand. You are from Belgium, no need to apologize for your English. Many people whose primary language should be English have trouble with it.

I also understand your movements so there is little on map movement, hence danger.



My carefulness about on-map danger may be tied to the fact my PBEM opponent had conquered Ceylon and the neighboring islands... if NJP went the same route and took Socotra (nothing much to oppose to him that early), this could prevent most of the US supply from arriving to India (a trickle could be sent by the middle of the Indian Ocean, at the risk of interception). Which would render the defense of India more difficult. But for that, he probably should have kept the troops he sent to Australia.

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 1321
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/23/2021 11:47:39 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Jan 28, 1942

Iboats are a severe threat to larger ships this early.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 1322
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/23/2021 12:04:05 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Task Force Lousiville sorties, having patiently waited the entire War for this opportunity.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1323
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/23/2021 12:07:26 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		USN planners had predicted this attack...Pago Pago was deemed not defendable early on. The garrison was never reinforced, and only lightly supplied.

The invasion came today.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1324
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/23/2021 12:11:09 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		The USN command is disappointed with the sub fleets ability to actually do damage, other than mine drops, but is enthused about the intel provided into routes and tactics the IJN follows.

Pure gold.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1325
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/23/2021 12:15:01 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		I wonder how badly the planes suffer operating in these conditions. I also wonder how planes with accumulated fatigue/damage push their attacks or simply drop their fish too soon. The afternoon attack fails also.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 1/23/2021 12:43:16 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1326
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/23/2021 12:17:14 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Still plinking away here...I will take time today to get some better pilots into these squadrons.








Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1327
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/23/2021 12:19:01 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Allied fighters are doing pretty good work...






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1328
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/23/2021 12:21:16 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Showing lots of little ships for Japan to think about. Partly an effort to help the Dewey escape, and also partly an effort to setup more ambushes by the remaining warships.

These Jakes were escorted by Zeroes.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 1329
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/23/2021 12:23:50 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Japan should never use AMCs in amphibious operations where there are coastal guns.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1330
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/23/2021 12:25:37 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		After a three day wait, the IJA finally attacks. Guessing the delay was awaiting supplies.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1331
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/23/2021 12:31:43 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		I was expecting a shock attack...Japan is changing tactics.

Can we hold? Terrain is woods. No Japanese aerial bombing. The 4th Division is dug in with forts 2, while the 34 Rgt, 11th Bde, 6th Cav has only 1. The rest 0.








Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1332
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/23/2021 12:32:28 PM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline 		Good ambush at Tulagi !

The lack of hits on Louisville by the G4M might be a testament to the loss of pilots since the beginning.

High altitude air war above Calcutta ? I see the Buffaloes altitude at 30k ft...

And I agree with your assessment of the AMC. I believe the code tries to use them as combat ships, but they’re not solid enough.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1333
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/23/2021 12:39:50 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Just a few points shy of a 1-3 attack...the Allied force inflicts a devastating loss on the IJA.

As the 34th Regiment withdraws from the line the Australians cheer them! The Gallant 34th!






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 1/23/2021 12:40:11 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1334
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/23/2021 12:50:44 PM   
Lowpe


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






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1335
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/23/2021 12:58:30 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		The South Pacific






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1336
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/23/2021 1:06:42 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Crisis at Lashio!






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1337
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/23/2021 1:09:28 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		More Japanese successes.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1338
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/23/2021 1:12:34 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		And, while the Deathstar steams toward Hokkaido, the IJN is gobbling territory in the South Pacifc.

USN Command is only willing to defend New Zealand and Australia...they can go to Tahiti, and in fact are encouraged to do so.






PS: I built VavaVu into a size 2 runway...I had planned on using it for quick air strikes hoping that Japan wouldn't notice the runway increase...but Japan is moving too fast and too strong here.



Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 1/23/2021 1:14:58 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1339
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/23/2021 1:34:35 PM   
Lowpe


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

Japan is going with very high sweeps, and I think that is not in their best interests...would be better off with at least two squadrons sweeping at their max manvr band.

Allies are countering, when we do (which isn't often) with high altitude patrols. The sweep over Brisbane yesterday we had enough radar for a 19 minute warning, here not so good as many Hurricanes were badly out of position.

Afternoon Air attack on Calcutta , at 52,37

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 10 NM, estimated altitude 32,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 14

Allied aircraft
Buffalo I x 9
Hurricane IIb Trop x 12

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 3 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Buffalo I: 1 destroyed

CAP engaged:
No.21 Sqn RAAF with Buffalo I (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 30000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 30000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 3 minutes
No.67 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIb Trop (0 airborne, 2 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 34000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 21 minutes
No.232 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIb Trop (0 airborne, 4 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 34000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 21 minutes
No.232 (P) Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIb Trop (0 airborne, 3 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 34000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 21 minutes
No.453 Sqn RAF with Buffalo I (0 airborne, 4 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 30000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 19 minutes
No.488 Sqn RAF with Buffalo I (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 30000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 30000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 4 minutes

The Brisbane fight from the previous day:

Morning Air attack on Brisbane , at 96,160

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 59 NM, estimated altitude 32,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 19 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 12

Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 14

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 2 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
7 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 31000 feet *

CAP engaged:
17th PS (P) with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 3 on standby, 6 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 38 minutes
33rd PS (P) with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 3 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 21 minutes

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 1/23/2021 2:20:51 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1340
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/23/2021 1:47:57 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		All good things come to an end.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1341
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/23/2021 2:03:43 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		I wonder how this will play out. The 2/6th is going to counter attack...The 8th Tank was lightly bombed to no visible result by Hudsons.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 1/23/2021 2:04:23 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1342
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/23/2021 2:07:56 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		How badly penalized will they be with an experience of 35 and weak morale? Drake is kind of timid...so

Should we shock? I feel we have to!




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 1/23/2021 2:09:52 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1343
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/23/2021 2:18:22 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		The IJA is too strong for us to counter attack here...but we have held the line. The 34th will withdraw back to Maryborough and then to Brisbane or Sydney to recover.

The 3rd Australian Division will arrive shortly and bolster the flank or replace the 2nd Division on the line so it can recover a bit.

Incredibly proud of our pixel troops here.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1344
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/23/2021 2:22:28 PM   
Encircled


Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

How badly penalized will they be with an experience of 35 and weak morale? Drake is kind of timid...so

Should we shock? I feel we have to!





Do you have to though?

If he shocks you, you've got decent tanks

Might be worth just defending

_____________________________


(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1345
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/23/2021 2:35:24 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Third Division will most likely be broken down into thirds to bolster Toowooba, Maryborough and Brisbane defenses.

Will pull out the 193rd Tank and 2/4th Armored to flank around and hit that SNLF unit to the west of our line...our main defensive position will rely up on our 25#ers, 155mm, and inherent AT guns...I don't think the IJA is in any position to attack.

I think it is the 8th Sasebo, and they probably have four antitank guns.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 1/23/2021 2:39:25 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1346
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/23/2021 2:59:41 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Sent to the Japanese:

LTC Leach sat in his cupola, binoculars glued to his eyes watching the IJA troopers advance thru the woods....and paying a terrible price from massed Allied artillery. The bark of 18 pounders mixed with the deep body trembling blasts of the 25 pounders , 4.5 inchers, 155mm and 105mm howitzers. Exploding trees only added to the carnage, but the IJA troopers were relentless, pushing hard against the 34th Regiment...when the IJA tanks started to appear on the advance. There was quite a few 2 pounder and 37mm anti tank guns responding, but they were being disabled, one by one…time to commit.

"Advance, flank right" Leach yelled into his microphone...and the idling M3 Stuarts leapt forward with the Australian Stuarts guarding his flank. The ground shook even more…

The IJA tanks quickly withdrew, but the 193rd devastated the IJA infantry...it was a long day before they regrouped and saw the proud but basically shattered 34th Regiment still holding the line. Their 155's and 105's still fired into the retreating Japanese but half of their 37mm guns had been knocked out of action.

Badly outnumbered, the combined Allied forces had held the line inflicting a heavy defeat on the IJA…cheering could be heard when Leach cut his engine.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 1/23/2021 3:48:58 PM >

(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 1347
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/23/2021 3:35:35 PM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline 		Thanks for the information on altitudes. Weird indeed, and he’s lucky more Hurricanes could not engage. Another great day for the RAF !

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I wonder how this will play out. The 2/6th is going to counter attack...The 8th Tank was lightly bombed to no visible result by Hudsons.






It’s a Mad Max level of coolness ! Time to show to the Desert Rats that the Aussies can also do that !

Or, Northern African campaign all over again ! If it only could be slight further W or NW...

But I wouldn’t shock attack. Only 5 Matildas in the unit, all the rest risk being shot up by the IJA fire.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1348
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/23/2021 5:36:07 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline 		Very nice smashing the IJA on the East Coast of Australia. Methinks that he is going to Australia in its entirety.

The 34th Infantry has a good, inspiring commander.

I do believe that the Mounted Rifles upgrade to CMF militia but I don't have my game open now. I don't know if the squads go right to the Aus 42 infantry or not. I will have to do more research on exactly how the upgrades work. But it might be worth it to upgrade units with those mounted rifles.

I like the Buffalo when it can die on the Zero, it is fast enough with enough firepower but it can't dogfight better than a brick.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 1349
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/23/2021 6:14:28 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

Thanks for the information on altitudes. Weird indeed, and he’s lucky more Hurricanes could not engage. Another great day for the RAF !

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I wonder how this will play out. The 2/6th is going to counter attack...The 8th Tank was lightly bombed to no visible result by Hudsons.






It’s a Mad Max level of coolness ! Time to show to the Desert Rats that the Aussies can also do that !

Or, Northern African campaign all over again ! If it only could be slight further W or NW...

But I wouldn’t shock attack. Only 5 Matildas in the unit, all the rest risk being shot up by the IJA fire.


We are shocking. I am curious.

My post wasn't too clear...in that hex is either the 8th Armor (with medium tanks I think) or 22nd Recon and I am betting it is the 22nd Recon.

We shall see.

(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 1350
Page:   <<   < prev  43 44 [45] 46 47   next >   >>
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  43 44 [45] 46 47   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

0.766