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: Enemy landings intercepted

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Enemy landings intercepted Page: <<   < prev  59 60 [61] 62 63   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Enemy landings intercepted - 1/24/2006 11:50:22 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		Must admit I was a bit cranky Fishbed, especially since I achieved a rare air victory just
prior to the incident.

Andy said he tried to re-create the turkey shoot, but somehow he ended up sending in
100 heavy and 50 medium bombers to Aitape with just a few Beaufighters I lost 80 to 77 ac
today and Aitape was bombed rather heavily. I'm not too happy, but now I just want to get on with the game!

If I loose a carrier anytime soon Andy may expect a call

Thx Hoepner, with PDU turned on Andy would have had 2000 more heavy bombers so I think I prefer the situation
as it is - especially from what I've read in your AARs.-) This game is certainly interesting but I expect to be
seriously outgunned within a 6-12 months. That's why I already value the smaller victories - like the cancelled
turkey shoot...

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 11/07/43

Surface Combat

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Aitape at 51,80

Japanese Ships
MSW W.10
PG Tamo Maru #7
PG Kure Maru #5

Allied Ships
AK San Lucas, Shell hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
AK Coast Farmer, Shell hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Allied ground losses:
16 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

Day Air attack on 46th Construction Battalion, at 51,80

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 6
A6M5 Zeke x 45
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 10

Allied aircraft
Kittyhawk III x 10
Beaufighter Mk 21 x 13
B-25J Mitchell x 9
B-17E Fortress x 20
B-24D Liberator x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged
A6M5 Zeke: 7 destroyed, 20 damaged
Ki-43-IIa Oscar: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Kittyhawk III: 7 destroyed
Beaufighter Mk 21: 6 destroyed, 1 damaged
B-25J Mitchell: 3 destroyed, 3 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 6 destroyed, 8 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 5 destroyed, 14 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
84 casualties reported
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 12th/B Division, at 51,80

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 5
A6M5 Zeke x 42
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 9

Allied aircraft
Kittyhawk III x 3
Beaufighter Mk 21 x 12
P-40N Warhawk x 13
B-25J Mitchell x 49
B-17E Fortress x 25
B-24D Liberator x 63

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged
A6M5 Zeke: 7 destroyed, 19 damaged
Ki-43-IIa Oscar: 5 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Kittyhawk III: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged
Beaufighter Mk 21: 5 destroyed, 1 damaged
P-40N Warhawk: 3 destroyed, 1 damaged
B-25J Mitchell: 9 destroyed, 13 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 4 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 7 destroyed, 30 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
126 casualties reported
Guns lost 12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Mussau Island at 60,83

Japanese aircraft
G4M2 Betty x 12
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 8

Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M2 Betty: 2 destroyed, 3 damaged
Ki-43-IIa Oscar: 3 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-38G Lightning: 1 damaged

Allied Ships
LCT LCT-168
LCT LCT-165
AP St. Mihel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Mussau Island at 60,83

Japanese aircraft
G4M2 Betty x 18
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 6

Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M2 Betty: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged
Ki-43-IIa Oscar: 2 destroyed

Allied Ships
AP Bloemfontrin, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
LCT LCT-474
LCT LCT-470, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground Combat

Ground combat at Talasea

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 1766 troops, 33 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 480 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles

Allied assault odds: 13 to 1 (fort level 3)

Allied forces CAPTURE Talasea base !!!

Japanese ground losses:
8 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Air losses







Attachment (1)

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 1801
RE: Enemy landings intercepted - 1/24/2006 11:55:54 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		Another thing that needs attention is the high casualty rate of my excellent Dinah III recon planes.
These ac were almost invulnerable to interception flying at over 400 mph at 20k feet - and still I loose 4-5
each and every day.

Do the rest of you have similar experiences?

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1802
RE: Enemy landings intercepted - 1/25/2006 1:36:07 AM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

Another thing that needs attention is the high casualty rate of my excellent Dinah III recon planes.
These ac were almost invulnerable to interception flying at over 400 mph at 20k feet - and still I loose 4-5
each and every day.

Do the rest of you have similar experiences?


Yes, I have seen that, I set mine at their higher alt (30 000+) and gave them no recon target, except when I plan a raid or something. It seems to me that so 1) losses are reduced 2) I learn a little less from several targets than more of one but I identify ground units and so on 3) the targets seem always to be randomly chosen and so my opponent can't anticipate a raid from the former day's recon flights


(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1803
RE: Enemy landings intercepted - 1/25/2006 2:05:18 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		Since I'm not conducting that many offensive operations anymore I'm frequently using my Dinah's in a naval search role.
Guess that's why they're taking such high casualties - not sure what value they have on naval search at 30k feet?

Will try to experiment a bit and see what happends!


_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)
Post #: 1804
RE: Enemy landings intercepted - 1/25/2006 8:50:22 AM   
String


Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline 		Ouch.. Andy is notoriuous for pushing his PT boats hard.. but damn, 166 lost?

The crews must really really hate him

Btw, is the Kennedy PT boat (can't remember the number) sunk yet?

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1805
RE: Enemy landings intercepted - 1/25/2006 4:26:33 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: String

Ouch.. Andy is notoriuous for pushing his PT boats hard.. but damn, 166 lost?

The crews must really really hate him

Btw, is the Kennedy PT boat (can't remember the number) sunk yet?


Probably less than the BB crews... but let us remember that it isn't Andy that lost all these ships and boats...

(in reply to String)
Post #: 1806
RE: Enemy landings intercepted - 1/25/2006 6:36:51 PM   
String


Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


quote:

ORIGINAL: String

Ouch.. Andy is notoriuous for pushing his PT boats hard.. but damn, 166 lost?

The crews must really really hate him

Btw, is the Kennedy PT boat (can't remember the number) sunk yet?


Probably less than the BB crews... but let us remember that it isn't Andy that lost all these ships and boats...


Well I do think a lot of those PT boats sunk under Andy's command, he likes to use them a lot.

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 1807
RE: Enemy landings intercepted - 1/25/2006 11:37:23 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		Andy said he was trying to be generous when he sent his heavy bombers to Aitape to
be shot down by my CAP - and forgot that 150 heavy bombers actually are capable of defending
themselves against a mere 60-70 Zeros and Oscars

Well, time to get on with the game!

Since Andy got relatively few surface combat assets he's been using his PT boats around the clock.
It's an Allied miracle weapon - you get new ones in an instant if you loose one. Should be a limit
based on the production sheet I presented. To make things more realistic they should also arrive in
major ports (size 9-10) and then be transported aboard cargo ships to their destinations.

If reinforcements had arrived with a delay it would have slowed down the furious pace of the game.
This would be an advantage for both sides me thinks. Comments?

Have to check the Kennedy boat String, but it's very likely it has been sunk.

To all of you Jap commanders out there: if you want to survive into 45-46 there is one thing that is essential!
Time. In order to receive substantial air and land reinforcements you have to keep the Allies out and dig in. In
order to achieve this you should dig in on every atoll and island under your controll. Delay, delay, delay - at all
costs! You will receive new LCUs, lots of them!



AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 11/08/43

Surface Combat

167

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Mussau Island at 60,83

Japanese Ships
DD Namikaze
DD Wakatake
DD Karukaya
DD Hayabusa

Allied Ships
PT PT-62, Shell hits 3, and is sunk
PT PT-63
PT PT-65
PT PT-103
PT PT-110
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

Andy stood down his bombers over NG to allow me to withdraw the Daitai's that took
heavy casualties in yesterdays big air battle. Lots of fighters on CAP over Aitape,
moved in reinforcements with fast transport instead.

Day Air attack on 112th USA Cav Regiment, at 51,80

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21 Sally x 13

Allied aircraft
P-40N Warhawk x 14
P-38J Lightning x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21 Sally: 9 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-40N Warhawk: 1 damaged

Allied ground losses:
13 casualties reported

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x Ki-21 Sally bombing at 5000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 53,80

Japanese aircraft
G4M2 Betty x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M2 Betty: 2 damaged

Allied Ships
AK San Lucas, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x G4M2 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground Combat

We now got a full regiment in place!

Ground combat at Aitape

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 3667 troops, 29 guns, 1 vehicles

Defending force 986 troops, 8 guns, 0 vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to String)
Post #: 1808
RE: Enemy landings intercepted - 1/26/2006 12:54:35 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		Pretty quiet and I expect that Andy is rallying for another major sortie with is carriers. Therefore it would
be wise not to expose any valuable units... Another push into the Marshalls, Admiralities and New Guinea is what
I expect.

Two more months and I should be able to move 3 aviation regiments to the Philippines. Got several size 4 airfields
ready.

9 November
Solomons - At Bougainville two American regiments begin their advance into the interior,
widening the tracks to allow the passage of their mortars. They suddenly come face to face with the
Japanese 23rd Infantry Regiment. A bloody battle continues over three days, culminating in the extermination
of the Japanese force, though with grave losses to the Americans.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 11/09/43

Surface Combat

Sent a bombardment group into Aitape - met a lonely APD and sent it to the fishes
together with its cargo! Bonus

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Aitape at 51,80

Japanese Ships
BB Fuso
CL Tama
DD Nowaki
DD Asakaze
DD Hakaze

Allied Ships
APD McKean, Shell hits 18, and is sunk

Allied ground losses:
139 casualties reported
Guns lost 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bombardments

Naval bombardment of Aitape, at 51,80

Japanese Ships
CL Tama
BB Fuso

Allied ground losses:
33 casualties reported
Guns lost 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

Seems like Andy has upgraded a Chink fighter group to Warhawks! Hm, better start bombing
them around the clock to keep the sods suppressed.

Day Air attack on Yunan , at 38,32

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21 Sally x 50

No Japanese losses

Runway hits 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Chungking , at 43,32

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 47
Ki-21 Sally x 107
Ki-48 Lily x 39
Ki-49 Helen x 27

Allied aircraft
I-16c x 2

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
I-16c: 2 destroyed
B-25J Mitchell: 1 destroyed
P-40N Warhawk: 2 destroyed

Allied ground losses:
4 casualties reported

Airbase hits 10
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 63
------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 54,81

Japanese aircraft
D3A Val x 8

No Japanese losses

Allied Ships
AK Coast Farmer, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x D3A Val bombing at 2000 feet
4 x D3A Val bombing at 2000 feet
--------------------------------------------------

Boot Camp: These pics are good for morale!




Attachment (1)

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1809
RE: Enemy landings intercepted - 1/26/2006 1:29:54 AM   
Rob Brennan UK


Posts: 3685
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: London UK
Status: offline 		I agree completely on your point about allied PT boats should at least be hard coded that they cant sail more than 1/2 endurance else they intercept japan on very efficient paddle power .. 9-10 ports yes good idea too. loading up i think would be impossible to implement. but you'd have to escort with an AK for fuelling in transit and that would simulate it.

_____________________________

sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1810
RE: Enemy landings intercepted - 1/26/2006 2:06:22 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		I think Japan should have Kaiten suicide crafts late in the war to compensate for the PT boat threat
Should be possible to implement a house rule: PT boats must be created at a size 9/10 port and escorted to the front.

Tomorrow Andy will resume his air strikes against NG: most of our ac have been moved out and several convoys
have been unloading at Hollandia bringing in troops and supplies. The redeployment of a full division to NG
is almost complete and the enemy presence at Aitape is wiped out.

3 more days until major air reinforcements arrive including the first unit of the Raiden interceptor.

11 November
Pacific - The main body of the Gilbert Islands invasion force (Operation Galvanic) sails from Pearl Harbour.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 11/10/43

Surface Combat

My small destroyer flotilla returned to Mussau to harass enemy shipping: bagged PT boat # 168 & 169
+ a transport.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Mussau Island at 60,83

Japanese Ships
DD Namikaze
DD Wakatake
DD Karukaya
DD Hayabusa

Allied Ships
PT PT-63, Shell hits 10, and is sunk
PT PT-65, Shell hits 3, and is sunk
PT PT-103
PT PT-110
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Mussau Island at 60,83

Japanese Ships
DD Namikaze
DD Wakatake
DD Karukaya
DD Hayabusa

Allied Ships
AK Arcata, Shell hits 4, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
AK Cape Henry, Shell hits 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

Would like to close this place permanently!

Day Air attack on Chungking , at 43,32

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 46
Ki-21 Sally x 98
Ki-48 Lily x 39
Ki-49 Helen x 12

Allied aircraft
no flights

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-25J Mitchell: 1 destroyed
P-40N Warhawk: 1 destroyed

Allied ground losses:
52 casualties reported

Airbase hits 18
Runway hits 67
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Great - 5 Liberators scoring 2 hits on 30 knot destroyers from 8k feet
Day Air attack on TF, near Truk at 63,78

Allied aircraft
PB4Y Liberator x 5

Allied aircraft losses
PB4Y Liberator: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
DD Karukaya, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Hayabusa, Bomb hits 1, on fire

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x PB4Y Liberator bombing at 8000 feet
1 x PB4Y Liberator bombing at 8000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground Combat

Relax...you've just been erased! Scratch a US Cav Regiment.

Ground combat at Aitape

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 7128 troops, 32 guns, 1 vehicles

Defending force 880 troops, 6 guns, 0 vehicles

Japanese assault odds: 69 to 1

Japanese ground losses:
40 casualties reported

Allied ground losses:
1533 casualties reported
Guns lost 7
-----------------------------------------------------------


_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to Rob Brennan UK)
Post #: 1811
RE: Enemy landings intercepted - 1/26/2006 2:28:35 AM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		I don't see the point of creating PTs at large ports and them transporting them. This is already simulated by the expenditure of supply to create them the same way Jap barges are created. What seems to be off would be the seeming gobs of supply that is available.

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1812
RE: Enemy landings intercepted - 1/26/2006 10:26:03 AM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline

quote:


To all of you Jap commanders out there: if you want to survive into 45-46 there is one thing that is essential!
Time. In order to receive substantial air and land reinforcements you have to keep the Allies out and dig in. In
order to achieve this you should dig in on every atoll and island under your controll. Delay, delay, delay - at all
costs! You will receive new LCUs, lots of them!


I do this that way in my PBEM
in 6/42 most of small atoll bases are already dig in
construction batalion are usually second ones I buy out of Kwantung


_____________________________


(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1813
RE: Enemy landings intercepted - 1/26/2006 3:20:10 PM   
Fishbed

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline
quote:

To all of you Jap commanders out there: if you want to survive into 45-46 there is one thing that is essential!
Time. In order to receive substantial air and land reinforcements you have to keep the Allies out and dig in. In
order to achieve this you should dig in on every atoll and island under your controll. Delay, delay, delay - at all
costs! You will receive new LCUs, lots of them!

If you indeed manage to survive long enough to get babies like the Shinden (who was eating Hellcats for breakfast in some other AAR in this forum), that's really gonna look good...
Talking about miss Frances, hope that her nominal speed will allow more leaks. She was said to be able to run as fast as allied fighters in certain conditions... Anyway, more and more interesting things to come as usual with this AAR .

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 1814
RE: Enemy landings intercepted - 1/26/2006 3:56:34 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		Supplies isn't an issue Cap & Gown - time is. Until the suppy system is re-worked, which I don't think it will be, a house rule would be
the only way to controll the PT boat scourge. I think Allied players would be a bit more careful with their PT boats if they had to go through
some pains to get them into position. I'm also playing an Allied game now in 8/42. Very handy to create PT boats in a remote base under siege by
the Japs. Both the Allies and Japan got barges, so this evens out.

Yep, can't hoard your units and play it safe as Japan - it would backfire big time! Don't have a single construction unit in all of Manchukuo, China or Burma.
The ones left in India are now moving out to the Philippines

We can always hope Fishbed, I know Andy will be putting on the tumb screws pretty soon. In the great Marianas Turkey shoot some 50 Jap bombers actually penetrated
the US CAP to attack their carriers. The pilots were not crack and only scored several near misses on 5! out of 7 fast carriers. If they had been a bit better and hit their mark it would have been cold turkey for the yanks. Anyway, it shows that large strikes usually provided a fair number of leakers.

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 1815
RE: Enemy landings intercepted - 1/26/2006 4:04:55 PM   
pauk


Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline 		yes, PTs are annoying. I have no problem that they can hit BB and sink DD from time to time - most annoying thing that they are extremely cheap (one VP) and Allied player couldn't care less about them... just keep them sending...



_____________________________


(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1816
RE: Enemy landings intercepted - 1/26/2006 6:46:06 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		1. does anybody confirmed effects of high forts on aerial and naval bombardments ?
2. How do you defend your northern flank ?
3. how well were Lautem and Koepang defended ?



_____________________________


(in reply to pauk)
Post #: 1817
RE: Enemy landings intercepted - 1/26/2006 7:03:11 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		From my own experiences:

1. Heavily fortified bases and ground combat units that have high preparation values take less casualties and can
hold out for a long time if a minimum of supplies can be brought in. Maloelap is an example: for months enemy air and sea bombardments
have hit the atoll. Most support units have been torched but a crack regiment and a large naval garrison unit still holds an assault value of 110.

3. I've built Lautern and Koepang to field 9 lvl forts and placed aprox a brigade + support units to their defense.

Heavy forts and well prepared troops is a major obstacle towards enemy landings. If a landing bogs down without having LBA support the entire invasion
fleet becomes vulnerable. So my solution is to put quality in the way of quantity as it's impossible to use a full division to defend each and every vulnerable
spot on the map. Split up your units and put them behind 9 forts and mines: that's always a good start

Guess there are other apporaches, would be nice to hear about them!

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 1818
RE: Enemy landings intercepted - 1/26/2006 7:17:33 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		Well in a month or two Raver will certainly test my defences we will see if they are adequate

_____________________________


(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1819
RE: Enemy landings intercepted - 1/26/2006 7:46:44 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		Just make sure you got a 'Force'd Manouvre' at hand! I used my tactical reserves at Kendari to counterattack Andy's landings at Kai Island.
My reserve at Truk went to Kavieng and prevented him from capturing it. Reserves in the Palaus' and Marianas' went to North Guinea and so on.

The more subtle aspects: reinforcing a besieged base prevents the enemy from capturing it but it will be almost impossible for Japan to destroy the
enemy units UNLESS you let him capture the base first. It only requires a 2-1 odds to recapture a base and force all enemy units there to surrender.
A very dangerous game

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 1820
RE: Enemy landings intercepted - 1/26/2006 10:03:46 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline
I assume you plan and assign fast transport TFs to move this "Force'd Manouvre" where it needs to go. By this time of the war, aren't AP's and AK's pretty much just Allied VPs waiting to happen?

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1821
RE: Enemy landings intercepted - 1/26/2006 10:13:50 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		It depends on the situation! At Kai Islands Andy invaded without having LBA/carrier support and transports sufficed.

Sometimes 500 transports can move a full division in a short time...At Kavieng I massed 100 APs in smaller TFs - very difficult to sink them all.
In late 43-44 Japan will suffer heavily no matter what - I can afford to exchange transports and other replacable units for time.
Fast transports on the other hand are very valuable and I can't afford to loose them.

I've never cared too much about VP's but fortunately I got 60k to 25 and can afford to loose quite a few without loosing the game

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 1822
RE: Enemy landings intercepted - 1/26/2006 10:26:40 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline
Ah, I see. So you use the "herd" method of AP protection. Interesting.

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1823
RE: Enemy landings intercepted - 1/26/2006 10:30:48 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		Northern New Guinea and the Palaus

I've been pondering over the map and come to the following conclusions:

If Andy wants to invade the Palaus' he will use bases in northern New Guinea to stage massive air strikes
and provide LRCAP. It will be way too dangerous to invade Woleai without securing Truk. The Combined Fleet and air force
at the Palaus' and Marianas' can overpower even a strong US invasion force without LBA support.

It will be very difficult to prevent North Guinea from falling into Allied hands but we have to do all we can to
delay it. Hansa, Wewak, Daigapu and Aitape are next on Andy's list and I'm not going to reinforce these bases further.
So I'm going to do my best to strengthen the bases from Hollandia and northwards.

For the time being the following troops are in place:
Name - ports - airfields - forts (construction in progress)
Hollandia 3(3) 4(4) 7(6%) 15k troops
Sarmi 1(1) 1(2) 2(48%) Construction unit
Biak 1(1) 4(4) 7(64%) 13k troops
Noemfoor 1(1) 4(3) 4(49%) 6k troops
Manokwari 1(1) 1(2) 1(55%) Construction unit
Sansapor 1(1) 1(2) 2(59%) Construction unit
Sorong 3(2) 4(2) 7(94%) 13k troops
Morotai 1(2) 4(3) 6(31%) 15k troops
Weda 1(1) 1(3) 2(54%) Construction unit

Hollandia, Biak and Noemfoor are valuable bases and should be garrisoned heavily.
Not sure which units to place there, got a lot of reinforcements that may fit in nicely. Should also be possible
to free a couple of units from China or borrow a division from the Marianas.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1824
RE: Enemy landings intercepted - 1/26/2006 10:37:23 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		There is protection in numbers... I don't like to use 100 single TFs - a dozen or more convoys of 5-6 ships is a good solution.

I often include supply ships and even empty ones in these convoys. If I want the enemy to concentrate on a single target I attach warships to an empty convoy

Strategic Map 11/43

Here is an overview: I've only turned on Japanese TFs' (red dots) and enemy ground units (green dots).
You can see the frontline pretty clearly. I'm also keeping my TFs away from enemy zones of controll.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1825
RE: Enemy landings intercepted - 1/27/2006 12:07:52 AM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		what is your strategy ?
Do you keep base with lower quality lighter unit and reinforce with better one (i.e. crack divisuon) or vice versa?
I try to do opposite variant - biggest troops are dug in in frontline bases as I want to use their artillery against landing enemy and naval guards as easy to transport fast by fast transport TF


_____________________________


(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1826
RE: Enemy landings intercepted - 1/27/2006 1:07:23 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		My crack divisions are in the Marianas and other key areas together with elite units like the South Seas Detachment,
brigades etc. They are augmented by artillery and coastal defensive units. My naval guard units have been placed in the Marshalls
and on New Britain and surrounding islands (earlier also in the Solomons). They have been withdrawn and rebuilt quite a few times.

Hopefully I can get some of them out and rebuild them again, getting more difficult as the monster called Allied LBA makes life short
for any transport group within striking distance of sniper B17/24s Air transports are used to withdraw them as well, just pulled
2 construction units out of the Admiralities. Don't want to loose them either.

It's vise to use the light units as a rapid reinforcement force as you say, unfortunately I can't afford to pull them out of the frontlines.
Got a big army tied up in India...(pulling one reserve division out now, it's heading for Palau).

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 1827
RE: Enemy landings intercepted - 1/27/2006 2:27:30 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		There are currently 1200 ac in my three Chinese training bases. This is the maximum number I employ
since the bases can only support 8x50 ac each. Most of the 1200 ac can be moved directly to the frontlines
but I will continue to hone their skills until they reach an average of 75 or more.

The plan is to base them in the Philippines and create a sizeable strategic air reserve. I'm going to need
several waves of good ac to defeat an Allied amphibious landing. Some 900 KB ac supported by 2000 Army and Navy
ac should be made ready. The question is which units to keep at the front? Andy will most likely sweep and bomb
the bases before an invasion so logical I should keep only a modest presence at the front..Only Ulithi, my main
fleet port will be heavily defended.

Today I moved 3 of my Glen equipped subs back into the Pacific to scout for enemy convoys and invasion fleets.
I've gven the boats a good overhaul and they don't have any system damage.

In Tokyo the Kaga has finished her 3/43 overhaul and is kept in reserve for now. I'm mostly waiting for enough 'Jills'
to replace all my Kates. This will enhance my striking capabilities substantially - torpedoes and bombs from 5 hexes.

11 November
Solomon Islands - On Bougainville, Japanese resistance in the entrenched line blocking the Mission track is exhausted. About 500 Japanese have been killed. The Americans move forward in all directions to widen their perimeter and find a place where they can construct an airfield.
New Britain - Two TFs including the Saratoga and the Princeton under R.Admiral Sherman, and the Essex, Bunker Hill and Independence under R.Adm Montgomery, send 185 ac over Rabaul. 68 Zero fighters are destroyed, the destroyer Suzunami sunk and the cruiser Agano and the destroyer Naganami, already badly damaged, reduced to smoking hulks. The Japanese send 120 ac out to attack the carriers. They succeed in locating and attacking R.Adm Montgomery's squadron, but do no serious damage to it and loose 41 ac against 11 lost by the Americans.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 11/11/43

Sub/ASW Attacks

The Finback decides to engage the Yamafuku Maru on the surface and is hit by three 3"
shells by the experienced gunnery crew!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 38,77

Japanese Ships
AP Yamafuku Maru, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
SS Finback, hits 3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

I continue to hammer Chungking and the Chinese AF remnants!

Day Air attack on Chungking , at 43,32

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 45
Ki-21 Sally x 95
Ki-48 Lily x 33
Ki-49 Helen x 24

Allied aircraft
no flights

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
P-40N Warhawk: 3 destroyed
B-25J Mitchell: 1 destroyed


Allied ground losses:
21 casualties reported

Airbase hits 10
Runway hits 149
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


< Message edited by PzB -- 1/27/2006 2:35:58 AM >

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1828
RE: Enemy landings intercepted - 1/27/2006 3:01:33 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		Attaching 2 compressed screenies of all the Army reinforcements that are going to arrive over the next year!
Should make it easier to plan ahead.

Army Reinforcements I




Attachment (1)

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1829
RE: Enemy landings intercepted - 1/27/2006 3:02:03 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		Army Reinforcements II




Attachment (1)

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1830
Page:   <<   < prev  59 60 [61] 62 63   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Enemy landings intercepted Page: <<   < prev  59 60 [61] 62 63   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

4.500