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  73 74 [75] 76 77   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/21/2021 1:45:37 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Hitting Colombo, I hope very hard...

Attacking at Rockhampton...

Bombarding at Bundaberg...and a full out attack. Night bombing, sweeping the port with 3 Desrons TFs, 2 CL SAGs and 10 subs, no radar equipped ones yet however. Japan has the advantage in weight with BB(s) and CAs. Oh my!

Bombarding at Diego Garcia

Sweeping Chittagong





< Message edited by Lowpe -- 6/21/2021 1:46:02 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2221
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/21/2021 1:49:55 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline 		When the fighters are bomb/strafing and are attacked by CAP, a flight will drop their bombs and engage the enemy CAP. However, I do not believe that they are considered escorting the strike (I do not know if they are or not, maybe a dev can help on that) so they would not thus be constrained like escorting fighters. This is something to consider doing with drop tanks at altitude to possibly catch training fighters along with any CAP instead of using the sweep.

_____________________________

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 Lowpe)
Post #: 2222
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/21/2021 2:53:34 PM   
Encircled


Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline 		Fulmers were the highest scoring British carrier based fighter of the war I believe

_____________________________


(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 2223
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/21/2021 4:05:34 PM   
Lowpe


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

Yet its long range was useful at times as evidenced in the 1941 chase of the German battleship Bismarck where Fulmars acted as carrier-borne spotters, tracking and trailing the fleeing battleship.[13]

First seeing action on Malta convoy protection patrols in September 1940, the sturdy Fulmar was able to achieve victories against its far more agile Italian and German adversaries. By the autumn, Fulmars had shot down ten Italian bombers and six enemy fighters, while giving top cover to the Swordfish raid on Taranto.

Fulmars played a prominent role in the ill-fated raid on Kirkenes and Petsamo in July 1941. By 1942, the Fulmar was being replaced by single-seat aircraft adapted from land fighters such as the Supermarine Seafire or by American single seat fighters such as the Grumman Martlet. It saw useful service in nighttime roles as a convoy escort and intruder and was used to train crews for the Fairey Barracuda. On the other hand, its flight characteristics were considered pleasant, its wide undercarriage provided good deck handling capacities and it had excellent fuel capacity and range. Fulmars were used in long-range reconnaissance after they were withdrawn as fighters. Most Fleet Air Arm fighter aces scored at least part of their victories in Fulmars, for example, Sub Lieutenant S.G. Orr, finished the war with 12 confirmed air victories, as the third-highest scoring pilot in the FAA.

At one time, 20 squadrons of the FAA were equipped with the Fulmar. It flew from eight fleet aircraft carriers and five escort carriers. No. 273 Squadron RAF operated them for some months in 1942 from China Bay, Ceylon, seeing action against Japanese forces during the raid on 9 April 1942;[14] though about half the squadron personnel were Navy. Fulmars destroyed 112 enemy aircraft, which made it the leading fighter type, by aircraft shot down, in the Fleet Air Arm during the Second World War.

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 6/21/2021 4:06:13 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2224
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/21/2021 6:05:42 PM   
BBfanboy


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

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Ceylon -- Ramillies and Resolution & friends set to bombard!




I vote for the Shipyard. 41 supply per turn is not going to feed all the troops on Ceylon, but loss of the shipyard will limit his confidence in having important ships that far west in the IO. Singapore would be the next nearest Shipyard, and he doesn't have that yet so Saigon is nearest for him.

_____________________________

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 #: 2225
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/21/2021 6:09:23 PM   
BBfanboy


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

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Hitting Colombo, I hope very hard...

Attacking at Rockhampton...

Bombarding at Bundaberg...and a full out attack. Night bombing, sweeping the port with 3 Desrons TFs, 2 CL SAGs and 10 subs, no radar equipped ones yet however. Japan has the advantage in weight with BB(s) and CAs. Oh my!

Bombarding at Diego Garcia

Sweeping Chittagong



Oh Boy!





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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 #: 2226
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/21/2021 6:10:59 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Ceylon -- Ramillies and Resolution & friends set to bombard!




I vote for the Shipyard. 41 supply per turn is not going to feed all the troops on Ceylon, but loss of the shipyard will limit his confidence in having important ships that far west in the IO. Singapore would be the next nearest Shipyard, and he doesn't have that yet so Saigon is nearest for him.


+1
Plus Saigon is limited in the size of ships that can get there.

_____________________________

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 BBfanboy)
Post #: 2227
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/21/2021 6:31:26 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Hitting Colombo, I hope very hard...

Attacking at Rockhampton...

Bombarding at Bundaberg...and a full out attack. Night bombing, sweeping the port with 3 Desrons TFs, 2 CL SAGs and 10 subs, no radar equipped ones yet however. Japan has the advantage in weight with BB(s) and CAs. Oh my!

Bombarding at Diego Garcia

Sweeping Chittagong



Oh Boy!







Also forgot, we are naval bombarding Chittagong too!

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 2228
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/21/2021 6:33:32 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Ceylon -- Ramillies and Resolution & friends set to bombard!


I vote for the Shipyard. 41 supply per turn is not going to feed all the troops on Ceylon, but loss of the shipyard will limit his confidence in having important ships that far west in the IO. Singapore would be the next nearest Shipyard, and he doesn't have that yet so Saigon is nearest for him.


+1
Plus Saigon is limited in the size of ships that can get there.


I think you guys are correct, but I still allocated some planes to the Light Industry. Any which way, I think Japan is in trouble here, as there is no AA that I see that can get here anytime quickly. So, even if he moves in fighters, the night bombers will take over.

Interesting that I am hitting him with Mitchells and Banshees. Their first strategic targets of the war.

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 2229
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/22/2021 12:31:22 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		April 17, 1942

Looks like he is fleeing Bundaberg...






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2230
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/22/2021 12:34:39 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Found the big girls...even if we don't hit anything, we are draining their ammunition.

Our guys are Wickes class destroyers I believe.








Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2231
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/22/2021 12:36:40 AM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

April 17, 1942

Looks like he is fleeing Bundaberg...







How is the moonlight and/or weather for PT Boats to encourage the Japanese to play bumper ships?

Now about some P-39s on Low Naval?

_____________________________

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 Lowpe)
Post #: 2232
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/22/2021 12:38:39 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		A long combat that costs us at least one destroyer...would be nice to damage the IJN destroyers so we get some good torpedo runs in on them....

So far the night is progressing as planned, destroyers first...








Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2233
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/22/2021 12:42:47 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Another skirmish...






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2234
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/22/2021 12:45:20 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		I liked that ship!




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2235
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/22/2021 12:49:11 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Not enough runway hits at Colombo...

I don't think Japan has any aviation support at Colombo yet...




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2236
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/22/2021 12:52:01 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Love eliminating these DMS - they are very useful ships for Japan.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2237
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/22/2021 12:54:18 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Looks like one CL task force didn't make it Bundaberg...

At Diego Garcia this is promising.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2238
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/22/2021 12:56:14 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		We managed to sweep, but there are a lot of Japanese fighters here....might be a tough day for the bombers.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2239
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/22/2021 12:59:08 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		More sweeps in the afternoon, this time at Chit.

Our bombers didn't fly at Colombo in the morning...




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2240
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/22/2021 1:06:03 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Big attack at Rockhampton....






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2241
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/22/2021 1:09:22 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		We are looking to be in good shape at evicting the Japanese from Diego Garcia...






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2242
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/22/2021 1:20:01 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Butchers bill and Australia...

the question today is how many troops are moving northwest out of Bundaberg....we have 120 AV, 30th Aust Bde there. Probably won't be enough, and I suspect using the roads we can get reinforcements there faster than Japan.

Japanese garrison at Bundaberg:

33rd Division
Sasebo 8th SNLF
Yokosuka 4th SNLF
4th Division
1st Raiding Rgt /2
5th Naval Construction Battalion
1st Medium Field Artillery Regiment
21st Infantry Regiment
4th JAAF AF Bn






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 6/22/2021 1:44:30 AM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2243
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/23/2021 2:21:50 AM   
CaptBeefheart


Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline 		I'd hit the LI at Colombo unless you think this is the only opportunity to hit the shipyard. I'd give him a false sense of security on the shipyard and then hit the port at night if he parks anything juicy there.

Cheers,
CB

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2244
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/23/2021 1:42:37 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		April 18th, 1942

A good destroyer skirmish...exactly how I want my Desrons to work.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)
Post #: 2245
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/23/2021 1:48:35 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		April 18th, 1942

Not a lot of damage, but solid damage for a ship with no spotters...will keep the damage from being fixed on the port I think!




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 6/23/2021 1:49:03 PM >

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)
Post #: 2246
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/23/2021 1:50:26 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Preparation for an afternoon attack by the ground forces at Digo Garcia...






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2247
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/23/2021 1:55:04 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		22-1 odds...we will clean up Diego.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2248
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/23/2021 1:57:53 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		2nd day of sweeps over Chittagong yield equal results roughly.

KB shoots down a Cat...

Lost two Blenheims carrying supplies to China/Burma.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2249
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/23/2021 2:09:41 PM   
Lowpe


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




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2250
Page:   <<   < prev  73 74 [75] 76 77   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  73 74 [75] 76 77   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

0.672