Tora^3 dennishe(J) vs Khyberbill (A) DBB-C with stacking limits

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
User avatar
dennishe
Posts: 1081
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 1:25 am
Location: Leiden, the Netherlands

Tora^3 dennishe(J) vs Khyberbill (A) DBB-C with stacking limits

Post by dennishe »

The point of no return has passed, the ships have sailed, the sun is about to rise...

No Khyberbill

Image
Attachments
AAR_1.jpg
AAR_1.jpg (104.99 KiB) Viewed 373 times
User avatar
KenchiSulla
Posts: 2956
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:19 pm
Location: the Netherlands

RE: Tora^3 dennishe(J) vs Khyberbill (A) DBB-C with stacking limits

Post by KenchiSulla »

Hey Dennis, good luck in your new game!
AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor
User avatar
dennishe
Posts: 1081
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 1:25 am
Location: Leiden, the Netherlands

RE: Tora^3 dennishe(J) vs Khyberbill (A) DBB-C with stacking limits

Post by dennishe »

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

Hey Dennis, good luck in your new game!

Thanks!
User avatar
DOCUP
Posts: 3093
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:38 pm

RE: Tora^3 dennishe(J) vs Khyberbill (A) DBB-C with stacking limits

Post by DOCUP »

looking forward to your AAR. I have always loved your AARs.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17459
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Tora^3 dennishe(J) vs Khyberbill (A) DBB-C with stacking limits

Post by John 3rd »

*Ditto*

Where did you get that painting of the KB? FANTASTIC!
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
topeverest
Posts: 3376
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:47 am
Location: Houston, TX - USA

RE: Tora^3 dennishe(J) vs Khyberbill (A) DBB-C with stacking limits

Post by topeverest »

I need a new AAR. mind if I tag along?
Andy M
User avatar
dennishe
Posts: 1081
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 1:25 am
Location: Leiden, the Netherlands

RE: Tora^3 dennishe(J) vs Khyberbill (A) DBB-C with stacking limits

Post by dennishe »

Thanks for the comments and feel try to tag along.
Where did you get that painting of the KB?

I found it at http://www.1zoom.net
User avatar
dennishe
Posts: 1081
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 1:25 am
Location: Leiden, the Netherlands

Midget subs rule

Post by dennishe »

The attack on Pearl Harbor went quite OK. Especially the midget subs ruled! One battleship sank already and four others have heavy fires. Not a bad score. Especially if a couple more battleships would sink duringthe night. Nevertheless, I'm pulling KB out. I don't want to loose many enemy pilots against enemy flak. A second day attack has never been very successful for me...



AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 07, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Midget Sub attack inside harbor of Pearl Harbor!!!

Japanese Ships
SSX Ha-24, hits 2, heavy damage

Allied Ships
PC Tiger
BB Pennsylvania, Torpedo hits 1

PC Tiger cannot reach attack position over SSX Ha-24
PC Tiger cannot reach attack position over SSX Ha-24
SSX Ha-24 eludes PC Tiger by hugging bottom
PC Tiger cannot reach attack position over SSX Ha-24


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Midget Sub attack inside harbor of Pearl Harbor!!!

Japanese Ships
SSX Ha-19

Allied Ships
BB California, Torpedo hits 1
AM Vireo

SSX Ha-19 eludes ASW attack from AM Vireo
SSX Ha-19 eludes AM Vireo by hugging bottom


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

Image

Morning Air attack on Pearl Harbor , at 180,107

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 40 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 68
B5N2 Kate x 144
D3A1 Val x 126

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 14 damaged
A6M2 Zero: 12 destroyed by flak
B5N2 Kate: 6 damaged
B5N2 Kate: 2 destroyed by flak
D3A1 Val: 18 damaged
D3A1 Val: 2 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
PBY-5 Catalina: 128 damaged
PBY-5 Catalina: 11 destroyed on ground
P-40B Warhawk: 48 damaged
P-40B Warhawk: 8 destroyed on ground
B-18A Bolo: 46 damaged
B-18A Bolo: 4 destroyed on ground
A-20A Havoc: 9 damaged
A-20A Havoc: 2 destroyed on ground
B-17E Fortress: 14 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 1 destroyed on ground
B-17D Fortress: 33 damaged
B-17D Fortress: 1 destroyed on ground
SBD-1 Dauntless: 31 damaged
SBD-1 Dauntless: 5 destroyed on ground
P-36A Mohawk: 19 damaged
P-36A Mohawk: 1 destroyed on ground
C-33: 2 damaged
C-33: 1 destroyed on ground
F4F-3 Wildcat: 3 damaged
F4F-3 Wildcat: 2 destroyed on ground
O-47A: 6 damaged
O-47A: 2 destroyed on ground
R3D-2: 1 damaged
R3D-2: 1 destroyed on ground
OS2U-3 Kingfisher: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
xAKL Hirondelle
BB Maryland, Bomb hits 8, Torpedo hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
BB Oklahoma, Bomb hits 6, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
BB Nevada, Bomb hits 10, Torpedo hits 2, on fire
CM Oglala
BB Tennessee, Bomb hits 4, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
BB Pennsylvania, Bomb hits 5, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
BB Arizona, Bomb hits 7, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires
DD Dewey, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DM Montgomery
AV Wright, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage
AV Curtiss, Bomb hits 1
CA New Orleans, Bomb hits 2
BB West Virginia, Bomb hits 5, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
BB California, Bomb hits 11, Torpedo hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAP St. Mihel
DD Tucker, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
CL Honolulu, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CA San Francisco, Bomb hits 2
DMS Perry, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Cummings, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
CL Detroit, Bomb hits 1
DM Gamble, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
PC Reliance, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
AG Argonne, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
CL Raleigh, Torpedo hits 1

Repair Shipyard hits 2
Airbase hits 29
Airbase supply hits 12
Runway hits 92
Attachments
AAR_2.jpg
AAR_2.jpg (88.21 KiB) Viewed 373 times
User avatar
dennishe
Posts: 1081
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 1:25 am
Location: Leiden, the Netherlands

RE: Midget subs rule

Post by dennishe »

Morning Air attack on TF, near Mersing at 52,82

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 4 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 1 minutes

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 13

Allied aircraft
Buffalo I x 2

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

No Allied losses

Allied Ships
BC Repulse
BB Prince of Wales, Torpedo hits 3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Mersing at 52,82

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 4 NM, estimated altitude 27,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 1 minutes

Japanese aircraft
G3M2 Nell x 18

Allied aircraft
Buffalo I x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M2 Nell: 1 damaged

No Allied losses

Allied Ships
BB Prince of Wales, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
BC Repulse

In total the first two raids scored five torpedo hits on the Prince of Wales. The afternoon raid did not find the Prince of Wales and failed to score any hits on the Repulse. The Prince of Wales was reported to have sunk, but this may be just fog of war. For sure it is not in fighting condition. Having an undamaged Repulse floating around on the other hand is a concern. If she links up with the Boise, Houston and a couple of Dutch and British light cruisers any Japanese invasion force is in trouble.

But no reason not to send the people at home a nice postcard...

Image
Attachments
AAR_3.jpg
AAR_3.jpg (179.28 KiB) Viewed 372 times
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 9798
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Midget subs rule

Post by PaxMondo »

I'd feel pretty good about calling the PoW sunk. 5 torps will generally do it. Congrats! [&o][&o][&o]
Pax
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Midget subs rule

Post by obvert »

Congrats on the minis getting hits. Always fun.

Love the visuals you're using. That postcard is amazing.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
dennishe
Posts: 1081
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 1:25 am
Location: Leiden, the Netherlands

RE: Midget subs rule

Post by dennishe »

The first real turn went down smoothly. Kota Bharu and Makin were captured. The Repulse was spotted at Singapore. And my Zero's kicked ass over Clark Field. Unfortunately, some Betty's and Nells that were on naval attack went for juicy targets at Manilla and Singapore port without a fighter escort. Losses were high. These will be the targets for my next Zero-sweeps...


Morning Air attack on Clark Field , at 79,76

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 35 NM, estimated altitude 26,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 52

Allied aircraft
P-40B Warhawk x 13
P-40E Warhawk x 10

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
P-40B Warhawk: 5 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk: 3 destroyed

User avatar
topeverest
Posts: 3376
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:47 am
Location: Houston, TX - USA

RE: Midget subs rule

Post by topeverest »

A few questions...

What are you marching to your first 30 and 60 days? have you determined your main effort / Oz / India / etc.? What are you planning to expand your economy to and which parts? Other than trying to save KB pilots, do you have a pilot training strategy?
Andy M
User avatar
dennishe
Posts: 1081
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 1:25 am
Location: Leiden, the Netherlands

RE: Midget subs rule

Post by dennishe »

ORIGINAL: topeverest

A few questions...

What are you marching to your first 30 and 60 days? have you determined your main effort / Oz / India / etc.? What are you planning to expand your economy to and which parts? Other than trying to save KB pilots, do you have a pilot training strategy?

Those are a lot of questions. I will try to answer all of them in the next weeks.

Before I started this BPEM I studied quite some posts and AARs. Especially the posts of Mike Solli and PaxMondo I found often very interesting. I'm also inspired by the "Hive" strategy of Captain Cruft. My aim is to continue fighting the Allies far into '45 and even '46. For this we need a huge HI pool halfway '44 (hopefully not much earlier) when the Allies will cut off Japan from the SRA. This implies that I will economize the Japanese production in '42 and '43 and then ramp it up into '44 when the Allies get closer to Japan. Also I will avoid to fight the Allies where they are strong and defend fiercely where I'm strong...
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Midget subs rule

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: dennishe

ORIGINAL: topeverest

A few questions...

What are you marching to your first 30 and 60 days? have you determined your main effort / Oz / India / etc.? What are you planning to expand your economy to and which parts? Other than trying to save KB pilots, do you have a pilot training strategy?

Those are a lot of questions. I will try to answer all of them in the next weeks.

Before I started this BPEM I studied quite some posts and AARs. Especially the posts of Mike Solli and PaxMondo I found often very interesting. I'm also inspired by the "Hive" strategy of Captain Cruft. My aim is to continue fighting the Allies far into '45 and even '46. For this we need a huge HI pool halfway '44 (hopefully not much earlier) when the Allies will cut off Japan from the SRA. This implies that I will economize the Japanese production in '42 and '43 and then ramp it up into '44 when the Allies get closer to Japan. Also I will avoid to fight the Allies where they are strong and defend fiercely where I'm strong...

Think a lot about supply expenditure as well. Consider how to streamline R n D and production so you don't have to spend a lot changing factories around. Cruft sat his fleet for most of the game. Even losing the SRA in 44 I think he has a ton of fuel saved up, too.

At the same time i wouldn't deny yourself the ability to produce a lot of good fighters in 42-43. You're going to need to set a tone during that time to make sure he must come forward slowly. If I play Japan again I will cut most xAK builds and a bunch of other shipping, pay lots of attention to ASW, and get a bunch of the best fighters for each period. you'll save more by not building ships than by neutering your air force.

Will you build up and fight for the Marshalls/Gilberts?
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
dennishe
Posts: 1081
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 1:25 am
Location: Leiden, the Netherlands

RE: Midget subs rule

Post by dennishe »

ORIGINAL: obvert


Think a lot about supply expenditure as well. Consider how to streamline R n D and production so you don't have to spend a lot changing factories around. Cruft sat his fleet for most of the game. Even losing the SRA in 44 I think he has a ton of fuel saved up, too.

At the same time i wouldn't deny yourself the ability to produce a lot of good fighters in 42-43. You're going to need to set a tone during that time to make sure he must come forward slowly. If I play Japan again I will cut most xAK builds and a bunch of other shipping, pay lots of attention to ASW, and get a bunch of the best fighters for each period. you'll save more by not building ships than by neutering your air force.

Will you build up and fight for the Marshalls/Gilberts?

Exactly. Most of the HI points will be saved on ships. Not on fighters. For now I'm only building CVs (not Shinano), BBs, CLs, DDs, SSs (not the transports and the short leg SSs), AOs, TKs, only the very large xAKs and SCs. This saves me an additional 1500 HIs per day. On aircraft I will build what I need. Useful engines I will mass produce. Same for vehicles and armament.

Atolls with level 6 fortresses are not easy to take therefore pose a good opportunity to delay the Allies. I will fight for them, but I'm not going to risk losing KB for them.
User avatar
dennishe
Posts: 1081
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 1:25 am
Location: Leiden, the Netherlands

RE: Midget subs rule

Post by dennishe »

The 14th Army landed at Aparri. This will be the only landing site in the north and therefore the convoys are somewhat easier to defend. Mines to destroy enemy DDs and SSs are already in place. The only goal is Manilla, where the light industry is located. Once I capture Manilla the USAFFE will starve eventually. I will pull out units of the 14th Army to capture Mindanao and the smaller Philippinian islands first before to return to Luzon and finish of the USAFFE there. At Mindanao only Zamboanga will be taken at an early stage as also there light industry is located. The USAFFE seems to be pulling out of Manilla already. So far so good... [:D][:D][:D]

Image
Attachments
AAR_4.jpg
AAR_4.jpg (76.36 KiB) Viewed 378 times
User avatar
topeverest
Posts: 3376
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:47 am
Location: Houston, TX - USA

RE: Midget subs rule

Post by topeverest »

definitely following the 'don't overexpand theory? I don't know your opponent. I assume he wont aggressively attack back to Luzon in 43 in the great fluid style sometimes shown in certain games. That would be unfortunate. I like the idea of planning in stages and streamlining development and production. Most get caught up in too many upgrades. I always fight hard for Luzon or the Taiwan power play, but usually the bulk of the carriers are gone prior to Mariana's. I take it from your strategy you are planning on playing turtle at some point? What will prevent the allies from 29-ing you to death?
Andy M
User avatar
dennishe
Posts: 1081
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 1:25 am
Location: Leiden, the Netherlands

RE: Midget subs rule

Post by dennishe »

ORIGINAL: topeverest

definitely following the 'don't overexpand theory? I don't know your opponent. I assume he wont aggressively attack back to Luzon in 43 in the great fluid style sometimes shown in certain games. That would be unfortunate. I like the idea of planning in stages and streamlining development and production. Most get caught up in too many upgrades. I always fight hard for Luzon or the Taiwan power play, but usually the bulk of the carriers are gone prior to Mariana's. I take it from your strategy you are planning on playing turtle at some point? What will prevent the allies from 29-ing you to death?

For this strategy to work it is key that the Allies are held up long enough to get sufficient oil to Japan and not to start the end battle too early. The Gilberts and Marshalls will be fiercely defended. Atols are relatively easy to defend. Especially with a bunch of mines, subs and KB-fighter protection agains 4E bomber raids these invasions can be quite costly to the Allies. Especially if their short range fighters cannot make it to the batlefield and the Zero's can. For the same reason I might reach far into the Pacific and cut off OZ from the USA. I'm convinced that the B29s can be stopped in '44 when the Allies only have few. In '45 this is going to be a different story. It will be important to keep the Allies sufficiently far away from Japan. If the 4E beasts get fighter escorts I'm in huge trouble. By the way: "Can the Allied player see which and how many planes and engines I'm building somehow?" The defensive perimeters will therefore be further away from Japan than in the "Hive" of Captain Crust...
User avatar
dennishe
Posts: 1081
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 1:25 am
Location: Leiden, the Netherlands

RE: Tora^3 dennishe(J) vs Khyberbill (A) DBB-C with stacking limits

Post by dennishe »

Things are going well. miniKB,Betties and my subs are sinking ships and my troops successfully landed at Tarawa and Mirri. An Allied carrier moved in close to Kwajalein. It is hunting for the Tarawa invasion force that I'm withdrawing around Kwajalein. I just moved the air flotilla from Kwajalein to Roi. Also I increased its torpedo ordnance to 60 and replaced the commander of the 27-plane Nell squadron with the most aggressive commander that I could find in pool. Let's see how this is played out...[:D][:D][:D]

Image
Attachments
AAR_5.jpg
AAR_5.jpg (33.85 KiB) Viewed 378 times
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”