Matrix Games Forums

Happy Easter!Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser Trailer
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned.

 
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: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned. Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned. - 3/12/2010 6:51:16 PM   
wpurdom

 

Posts: 410
Joined: 10/27/2000
From: Decatur, GA, USA
Status: offline
The early problems with US Aerial torpedoes

quote:

The early models were handicapped by the need to drop them low and slow - 50 feet (15 m) and 110 knots - which made the torpedo planes carrying them more vulnerable to attack. The torpedoes themselves were found to be prone to defects. In mid-1943, an analysis of 105 torpedoes dropped at speeds in excess of 150 knots found that 36 percent ran cold (did not start), 20 percent sank, 20 percent had poor deflection performance, 18 percent gave unsatisfactory depth performance, 2 percent ran on the surface and only 31 percent gave a satisfactory run. The total exceeds 100 percent as many torpedoes had more than one defect.

These problems were greatly reduced by the latter years of the war. Torpedoes had fin stabilizers, nose drag rings and tail shroud rings added, all of which worked to slow the torpedo after it was dropped so that it struck the water nose-first and at an acceptable speed. These improved the drop characteristics such that the recommended aircraft maximum launch parameters were increased to a height of 2,400 feet (730 m) and a speed of 410 knots.

The addition of the nose drag ring improved aerodynamic performance by stabilizing the torpedo in flight and reduced air speed by about 40 percent. It also acted as a shock absorber when the torpedo struck the water. The tail shroud ring improved the water run by reducing hooks and broaches and by eliminating much of the water roll which had characterized the earlier Mark 13s. Hot, straight and normal runs now approached 100 percent. To speed availability of the much improved torpedo, the Bureau of Ordnance had tail assemblies built with the shroud ring attached and then shipped these to the fleet for upgrading the existing inventory. By the fall of 1944, the modified torpedo was in general use by the front-line carrier units which were enthusiastic in their praise. On one occasion in early 1945, six torpedoes were dropped from altitudes between 5,000 and 7,000 feet (1,500 to 2,100 m). Five out of the six were observed to make their runs hot, straight and normal. By the end of the war, the USN considered the Mark 13 to be the best aircraft torpedo produced by any nation and it remained in service until 1950.


http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_WWII.htm

Given the crappy torpedo, the Catalina is probably as good a delievery vehicle as other planes, especially the Devastator. I've been told that the optimal release speed (reliability unknown) was actually closer to 80 MPH and was below the stall speed of a Devastator and my supposition is that the stall speed of a Catalina is less than that of a Devastator, though others more knowledgeable may correct me.

The advantage of Japanese torpedoes

quote:

A problem that plagues all aircraft torpedoes is stability on water entry. The U.S. never fully got the hang of it and experienced problems well into 1944. The major problem is spinning on entry. This causes the torpedo to "Fish Hook'' or turn sharply as the tall fins enter time water.

The Japanese approached the problem on two fronts. First they tested two types of detachable tail frames. The "box' and "X", see diagrams(click to see diagrams), were both used during WWII. While the Box was the most effective, it was impractical for confined bomb bays. Box units were used for under-fuselage and wing mounts....

Secondly, to futher combat "Fish Hooking" two small anti-spin flippers were first installed on Type 91, Mod 2 units, 1942, and all subsequent models. The pair of flippers were gyro controlled and located just forward of the tail fins. The Flippers in turn had detachable wooden fins of bath small and large designs. Small units were used more often. Both tail frames and "Flipper Slippers" slipped on and broke away on water entry.

Another problem was the drop envelope, how fast, how high, etc. The ideal condition with mast early units was at 180Kts and 350 feet with a 170 to 200 bow angle at 1000m. With, I might add, Lord knows haw many anti-aircraft guns blasting away at you. Rather unsettling thought, isn't it? An improper drop would cause the torpedo to dive to the bottom or porpoise and snap in half. A 4mm latex rubber sheath, extending back 24" from the nose aided in cushioning water impact shock. The sheath would shatter on impact.


IJNAF and IJAAF Aircraft Ordinance
Part I Aircraft Torpedoes
by Bryan Wilburn

(in reply to wpurdom)
Post #: 91
RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned. - 3/12/2010 7:41:58 PM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14117
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
As far as 'places to resist' go, the mountain hexes are fine. Soerabaja has oil, Batavia has industry. If you abandon those two hexes the IJA can just shut down your airfield (so you can't bomb oil centers) and turn your last redoubt into a southern PI. The only motive then to defeat your last redoubt is to free up IJA forces for redeployment.

This might be a good strategy but you should be clear that is OK with you in case the IJ player chooses to do it.

(in reply to wpurdom)
Post #: 92
RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned. - 3/12/2010 9:08:33 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 3863
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline
Cheers guys! Nice reading and discussions ongoing here. It is very late back here in Finland and had an awful week at work. Feeling kind of "out of energy" mode so I will respond to any PM's tomorrow when my brain is working correctly. (hopefully) Appreciated these for sure though.

Sardaukar: That is so true. I never been a big fan of cadres in this game series.

That just seems a bit unrealistic and gamey. Only have done this few times and somehow I don't see myself changing this "attitude".

crsutton: I really cannot argue againts that statement. My other PBEM (which is not to be mentioned in detail) a bit further and you need to choose wisely how to spend those points.

The Banshee situation will be decieded in the "last minute". A way too early to see what the strategic situation here is.

wpurdom: Yup, the Batavia has light urban same as Manila. The thing about Batavia though is that it is easily approached via two fronts. One Merak and also from central Batavia.

That brings the problem that thus we would need to split up our infantry stacks etc. Which really is not an good idea by any means. This all comes down to the amount of AV we can spare into this "fortress".

The mountain "strategy" is very valid point to any allied players starting an AE campaign. Terrain, terrain and even more terrains. Good tip! (Very valuable in China indeed too)

PP penalty is static per unit as you state.

Nice information WW2 torpedoes. Just very tired tonight after an work day to "forget". I like history so will digest those tomorrow when feeling a bit "fresh". I have my daughters with me this weekend so it will be evening though.

Btw, PBY's are solid againts lone or poorly escorted merchants. I think they have hit 4 merchants in past two turns.

witpqs: Basically what you are saying is that to keep industrial hexes occupied? I'am not going into strategic bombings early on. I know I could but I want my PBEM partner to enjoy the game too. No sense of inflicting extra industrial damage at DEI early on. Another areas are diffrent story though.

Actually could already bomb his oilfields around Borneo but have chosen not to do so. We do want inflict maxium amount of damage via sabotage though.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 93
RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned. - 3/12/2010 9:10:05 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 3863
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline
Java (january 6th - 7th 1942)


The "forecast" of bombs dropping at Batavia did happen. That was an mixed fortunes and I think we did more than ok. My opponent commented that he forgot change the "ranges" for his squadrons and this was not planned though.

The raids detailed below...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Batavia at 49,98

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 45 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 29
B5N2 Kate x 86
D3A1 Val x 35



Allied aircraft
Buffalo I x 38
B-339D x 37
75A-7 Hawk x 10


Japanese aircraft losses
B5N2 Kate: 14 destroyed, 22 damaged
D3A1 Val: 5 destroyed, 4 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Buffalo I: 1 destroyed
B-339D: 7 destroyed
75A-7 Hawk: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
xAK Elysia, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AMc Lawoe, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AMc Salak, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Barker
CL Tromp
CL De Ruyter
DD Witte de With
xAK Clan Mactavish, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
xAK Baron Cawdor, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AMc MMS A, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
CL Glasgow
DD Van Ghent
DD Paul Jones
DD Parrott
xAK Halizones, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Oosthaven at 48,96

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 29 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 8
B5N2 Kate x 12



Allied aircraft
Buffalo I x 2


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Buffalo I: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
xAK Lowana
xAK La Cordillera
xAK Empire Hamble, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage


Allied ground losses:
Guns lost 6 (5 destroyed, 1 disabled)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Batavia at 49,98

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 45 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 35
B5N2 Kate x 34
D3A1 Val x 71



Allied aircraft
Buffalo I x 34
B-339D x 18
75A-7 Hawk x 6


Japanese aircraft losses
B5N2 Kate: 5 destroyed, 12 damaged
D3A1 Val: 5 destroyed, 5 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Buffalo I: 3 destroyed
B-339D: 3 destroyed

Allied Ships
DD Witte de With
xAK Halizones, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
CL De Ruyter
DD Van Ghent
DD Bulmer
CL Tromp, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
CL Glasgow, Bomb hits 5, heavy fires
xAK Clan Mactavish, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Barker
xAK Baron Cawdor, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Piet Hein

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Batavia at 49,98

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 39
B5N2 Kate x 24
D3A1 Val x 57



Allied aircraft
Buffalo I x 26
B-339D x 11
75A-7 Hawk x 7


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed
B5N2 Kate: 2 destroyed, 3 damaged
D3A1 Val: 1 destroyed, 6 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Buffalo I: 2 destroyed
B-339D: 2 destroyed

Allied Ships
DD Bulmer, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Witte de With, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
CL De Ruyter, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Barker, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Paul Jones, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Parrott


That is how the turn played out. The ABDA fleet got hit hard but in exchange we got quite a few of his "elite" pilots. I know the AE training system
produces way too many "aces" in current system but not too bad actually.

It also seems that he is moving towards Bandejermasin. There is lvl 3 airfield there so no suprise with this allied signit information.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 94
RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned. - 3/12/2010 9:11:18 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 3863
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline
An turns air losses reported by intelligence screen...




Attachment (1)

(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 95
RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned. - 3/12/2010 9:12:07 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 3863
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline
Luzon (january 6th - 7th 1942)


The battle of Clark Field begins on december 6th 1942. Fist attempt to capture the base was pushed away.

The bad news is that his engineers knocked down a fort level here even with bad odds.

He has also send in large amount of bombers here and our AA guns are doing an ok job. Many of these bombers are damaged.

Overall in philippines he has now almost seized the territories at Mindanao and Samar.

The initial blows at Clark Field below...

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

Ground combat at Clark Field (79,76)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 48874 troops, 459 guns, 571 vehicles, Assault Value = 1740

Defending force 46188 troops, 777 guns, 519 vehicles, Assault Value = 1890

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 2

Japanese adjusted assault: 636

Allied adjusted defense: 1888

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

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

Japanese ground losses:
2712 casualties reported
Squads: 6 destroyed, 181 disabled
Non Combat: 15 destroyed, 166 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 21 disabled
Vehicles lost 79 (4 destroyed, 75 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
1166 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 157 disabled
Non Combat: 14 destroyed, 92 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 10 disabled
Vehicles lost 34 (3 destroyed, 31 disabled)




Attachment (1)

(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 96
RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned. - 3/12/2010 10:06:52 PM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14117
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: aztez

witpqs: Basically what you are saying is that to keep industrial hexes occupied? I'am not going into strategic bombings early on. I know I could but I want my PBEM partner to enjoy the game too. No sense of inflicting extra industrial damage at DEI early on. Another areas are diffrent story though.

Actually could already bomb his oilfields around Borneo but have chosen not to do so. We do want inflict maxium amount of damage via sabotage though.


Well, I guess the best way to say it is consider what you will possibly accomplish with each plan. If you stay in the mountains and the IJA chews itself up on you that is a benefit. But if they close your airfield and turn the base into a POW camp - not so good! In the second case you might do more good by getting beaten much more quickly (in Batavia and Soerabaja) if it denies the industry/oil to him for a week longer (whereas if you pull everything into the mountains your oil/industry centers will fall very quickly).

BTW, in spite of months of training my Dutch air force achieved almost nothing.

(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 97
RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned. - 3/12/2010 10:26:52 PM   
jrlans


Posts: 180
Joined: 8/27/2005
From: Los Angeles, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


BTW, in spite of months of training my Dutch air force achieved almost nothing.



Yah I have had the same problem thats why I would recomend geting US fighters there if you can its the only way you have any chance of air pairty.

As for defence if I were playing the Japs and you didnt defend one of the Java cities i would keep a couple of squadrons back for traning of land bombing keep your AF closed and just enough force to prevent you from going anywhere and move on. In the next couple of days you will probably get a sence of how your opponent likes to deal with large land stacks (ie: does he let bataan rot)

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 98
RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned. - 3/13/2010 8:23:34 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 3863
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline
witpqs: That is an good summary. There are always gains and losses to be weighted in.

I'am building up forts on in couple of mountaneous terrains. It is good to keep and backup plans available.

The main idea is to slow him down and sabotage precious industrial centers.

Hmmm, you were training them purely on naval missions I gather? I'am using mixed training for squadrons.

jrlans: The first set of fighters should arrive at Cape Town in two weeks time. Get them loaded and off to the frontlines they go...

That was an good prediction when you stated about the "next few days". He is coming forward and is bypassing some important bases.

(in reply to jrlans)
Post #: 99
RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned. - 3/13/2010 8:24:16 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 3863
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline
China (january 8th - 9th 1942)


An quick pick how things are in this huge country.

The main thing you can notice that I'am not going to fight on the plains or any other areas which doesn't add any advantages to us.

Supply levels are ok and important bases are gaining forts.

There are some guerilla units in constant movement but the main forces are redeploying nicely.

So far we have knocked/routed 2 IJA brigades and couple of smaller units. That is a good for sure.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 100
RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned. - 3/13/2010 8:25:15 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 3863
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline
Luzon (january 8th - 9th 1942)


The ground battles at Clark Field continued and we got decent odds. Philippine operation is not an cakewalk for the japanese.

He has focused substantial numbers here and our AA guns are damaging quite a few of these squadrons.

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

Ground combat at Clark Field (79,76)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 48162 troops, 545 guns, 544 vehicles, Assault Value = 2038

Defending force 44667 troops, 776 guns, 517 vehicles, Assault Value = 1737

Japanese adjusted assault: 754

Allied adjusted defense: 2320

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 3 (fort level 2)

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

Japanese ground losses:
3597 casualties reported
Squads: 59 destroyed, 62 disabled
Non Combat: 44 destroyed, 186 disabled
Engineers: 7 destroyed, 50 disabled
Guns lost 5 (3 destroyed, 2 disabled)
Vehicles lost 94 (3 destroyed, 91 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
1654 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 90 disabled
Non Combat: 11 destroyed, 187 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 16 disabled
Guns lost 2 (0 destroyed, 2 disabled)
Vehicles lost 76 (6 destroyed, 70 disabled)




Attachment (1)

(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 101
RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned. - 3/13/2010 8:26:12 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 3863
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline
Java (january 8th - 9th 1942)


There were no navalstrikes launched by KB. Instead it launched couple of large sweep missions againts Batavia.

Needless to say that our squadrons providing CAP were no match for these elite pilots.

I mentioned that we got reports about forthcoming assault in southern Borneo. Indeed, he landed troops via fast transports. The Bandjermasin airfield seems to have
an important role in his plans.

Also landings reported at Muntok near Palembang.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 102
RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned. - 3/15/2010 8:30:32 PM   
jrlans


Posts: 180
Joined: 8/27/2005
From: Los Angeles, CA
Status: offline
Generaly if KB is nearby I stand down my duch AF. They will not do anything against KBs fighters and its better IMO to save what limited planes you do have as fighter bait when you want your bombers to acutaly get thru.

(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 103
RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned. - 3/15/2010 8:51:13 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 3863
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline
jrlans: I agree 100%. It would be just waste of good resources. We will have better use for these pilots.

Things are heating up near Java though and we got some good results.

(in reply to jrlans)
Post #: 104
RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned. - 3/15/2010 8:53:34 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 3863
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline
Luzon (january 10th - 23rd 1942)


There are two things worth of mentioning.

First it seems our AA guns hurt him a bit since the level of lba bomber runs has been significantly reduced.

Another obviously being that we still have firm foothold at Clark Field.

Just one ground was launched and details can be shown below.

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

Ground combat at Clark Field (79,76)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 45457 troops, 571 guns, 551 vehicles, Assault Value = 1827

Defending force 47412 troops, 789 guns, 515 vehicles, Assault Value = 1601

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 2

Japanese adjusted assault: 781

Allied adjusted defense: 3214

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 4 (fort level 2)

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

Japanese ground losses:
2971 casualties reported
Squads: 14 destroyed, 135 disabled
Non Combat: 7 destroyed, 232 disabled
Engineers: 5 destroyed, 60 disabled
Vehicles lost 67 (5 destroyed, 62 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
1224 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 103 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 122 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled
Vehicles lost 20 (2 destroyed, 18 disabled)




Attachment (1)

(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 105
RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned. - 3/15/2010 8:54:46 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 3863
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline
Malaya (january 10th - 23rd 1942)


The japanese have now entered Johore Baru. Allied troops had initial success destroying some enemy armoured units.

Now there are +2500 worth of infantry here so general withdrawal into Singapore has been ordered.

The battles listed below in chrononicle order...

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

Ground combat at Johore Bahru (50,83) ...january 17th 1942.

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 18215 troops, 267 guns, 96 vehicles, Assault Value = 738

Defending force 2717 troops, 6 guns, 191 vehicles, Assault Value = 139

Allied adjusted assault: 1140

Japanese adjusted defense: 65

Allied assault odds: 17 to 1

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

Japanese ground losses:
510 casualties reported
Squads: 17 destroyed, 27 disabled
Non Combat: 16 destroyed, 56 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Vehicles lost 117 (44 destroyed, 73 disabled)
Units retreated 3


Allied ground losses:
663 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 70 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 66 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Vehicles lost 12 (0 destroyed, 12 disabled)


Defeated Japanese Units Retreating!


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

Ground combat at Johore Bahru (50,83) ...january 22nd 1943

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 41872 troops, 463 guns, 471 vehicles, Assault Value = 1494

Defending force 21263 troops, 332 guns, 192 vehicles, Assault Value = 703

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 2

Japanese adjusted assault: 776

Allied adjusted defense: 615

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

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 2

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

Japanese ground losses:
1774 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 78 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 114 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 24 disabled
Guns lost 2 (0 destroyed, 2 disabled)
Vehicles lost 10 (0 destroyed, 10 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
2338 casualties reported
Squads: 21 destroyed, 134 disabled
Non Combat: 16 destroyed, 248 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 13 disabled
Vehicles lost 38 (11 destroyed, 27 disabled)

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

Ground combat at Johore Bahru (50,83)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 40626 troops, 463 guns, 471 vehicles, Assault Value = 2575

Defending force 18886 troops, 333 guns, 183 vehicles, Assault Value = 560

Japanese adjusted assault: 291

Allied adjusted defense: 563

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

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

Japanese ground losses:
1359 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 88 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 74 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 33 disabled
Guns lost 4 (0 destroyed, 4 disabled)
Vehicles lost 28 (0 destroyed, 28 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
1864 casualties reported
Squads: 16 destroyed, 108 disabled
Non Combat: 19 destroyed, 110 disabled
Engineers: 4 destroyed, 18 disabled
Vehicles lost 27 (5 destroyed, 22 disabled)




Attachment (1)

(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 106
RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned. - 3/15/2010 8:55:45 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 3863
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline
Java (january 10th - 23rd 1942)


KB has stayed in the area and launched sweep missions againts Batavia and Soereabaja. ABDA airforce did not intervene with these missions.

I think he might be a bit frustrated here since I guess he wanted to sweep aside our resistance here.

A few naval missions were launched as well. Those sunk couple of small xAKL's and AMC's. Nothing major either.

Things got pretty ugly for the KB too. Last turn saw CV Soryu being torpedoed by an dutch submarine. I think this was actual hit since an explosion below waterline was
reported as well as heavy fires.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Sampit at 56,98

Japanese Ships
CV Soryu, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
BB Kirishima
CA Chikuma
CA Tone
DD Tanikaze
DD Kagero
DD Ushio
DD Sazanami
DD Kasumi
DD Arare

Allied Ships
SS KXVII


The carrier is also shown on sunken ship list. Allthough, I'am a bit skeptical on this news though.

Japanese have now completed the capture in northern Borneo. This will give him good airbases once he gets aviation support in place.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 107
RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned. - 3/15/2010 8:57:18 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 3863
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline
The sunken japanese ships reported on íntelligence screen...




Attachment (1)

(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 108
RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned. - 3/15/2010 9:01:59 PM   
wpurdom

 

Posts: 410
Joined: 10/27/2000
From: Decatur, GA, USA
Status: offline
Where are you basing your Philippine area subs? DO you have any fuel in Bataan, and, if so, are you going to "top off" the fuel for any of the subs?

(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 109
RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned. - 3/15/2010 9:36:46 PM   
jrlans


Posts: 180
Joined: 8/27/2005
From: Los Angeles, CA
Status: offline
Good news about Clark, looks like you will hold there for awhile longer. Do you think you will be able to get the majority of your foces out of Johore Baru before being overun?

Also hows are the forts on bataan coming and is it being bombed to prevent you from building them up?

Finaly I highly doubt Soryu is sunk, seems like the FOW likes to put anything with a torpedo in it as sunk. Though unless it was a glancing blow I wouldnt expect to see her for at least two months.

(in reply to wpurdom)
Post #: 110
RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned. - 3/15/2010 9:39:26 PM   
String


Posts: 2633
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jrlans

Good news about Clark, looks like you will hold there for awhile longer. Do you think you will be able to get the majority of your foces out of Johore Baru before being overun?

Also hows are the forts on bataan coming and is it being bombed to prevent you from building them up?

Finaly I highly doubt Soryu is sunk, seems like the FOW likes to put anything with a torpedo in it as sunk. Though unless it was a glancing blow I wouldnt expect to see her for at least two months.



Now, if you know which way she's running and base a few dutch/s-class subs on her way.. she might just sink

_____________________________

Surface combat TF fanboy

(in reply to jrlans)
Post #: 111
RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned. - 3/16/2010 1:09:24 AM   
wpurdom

 

Posts: 410
Joined: 10/27/2000
From: Decatur, GA, USA
Status: offline
Good luck on your guessing on pursuit.

With a hit below the waterline and fire, there's a good chance the major flotation damage is 30ish + minor and system. If he runs at high speed, a good chance of sinking, if not maybe the subs can do more if you guess correctly.
And when fire starts on a Jap CV, who knows what will happen?

PS - did it break out with an escort group?
I guess you can't know yet and aren't likely to if he keeps KB with it to protect it.

< Message edited by wpurdom -- 3/16/2010 12:42:55 PM >

(in reply to String)
Post #: 112
RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned. - 3/16/2010 1:14:20 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 3863
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline
wpurdom: I'am basing my submarines in two areas now a) Java and other key bases and b) Home Islands.

That way I think they can get optium amount of targets for their operations. The ship traffic around Luzon has slowed down for obvious reasons.

Bataan is almost at lvl 4 forts which I think is good. The Clark Field still has level 3 forts on it so it is tough nut to crack.

I think Bataan is not optium place for submarine operations so I'am using Soerabaja for this.

I cannot say whether or not that carrier TF got separated. Not 100% for sure though.

The good thing is that it seems we hit yet another carrier. This CV Zuikaku near Singakawang. This did not show up on combat replay BUT katsuragi insisted that it is hit and wasn't too pleased about it.

If so than we have damaged 2 CV's is past few turns with our submarines. That is excellent ratio. Both of these ships are shown on sunken ship list.

There is an submarine around Saigon and Camrah Bay but I don't have my hopes up.

jrlans: Bad news about Johore Baru. We were +40 miles off when forced to retreat. That was close, very very close. Now only Singapore stands and I wonder how long. The operations at Malaya should conclude before february 1942. Fingers crossed on this though.

He hasn't bombed Bataan nor Clark Field recently. I think AA losses were mounting too high. I did pay attention to getting solid AA fire on bóth bases.

I think CV Soryu is definately hit. So, is CV Zuikaku. Thus meaning he has an handicap of 2 carriers for time being.

That is excellent news indeed.

String: I'am trying to intercept those carriers but don't have my hopes up. Not too bad though even if those carriers limp to base.

Well, they might even sunk.. who knows what the damage actually is!

(in reply to wpurdom)
Post #: 113
RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned. - 3/17/2010 8:36:35 PM   
jrlans


Posts: 180
Joined: 8/27/2005
From: Los Angeles, CA
Status: offline
As to your subs Az if possible i would think about sending some of your shorter range subs with decent cargo capcity to either darwin or sorebaja to start supply runs to bataan. If you want to extended the siege you will need supplys.

I also wouldnt build past lvl 4 forts they simply take too long and eat too many supplies past 4, maybe get a 15% into 4 so that if it gets knocked down a level or two you can instanly rebuild. 

(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 114
RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned. - 3/18/2010 10:43:25 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 3863
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline
jrlans: I will look into that submarine suggestion. These subs have hit a lot of ships so far so not too eager on getting them on supply runs.

I did land some 5000 supplies into Luzon with xAKL's few turns back though.

This was pure luck since I do not have anykind of fighter cover here.

Point taken on the fort levels. I do feel too that Bataan should not be build up too much. The gains of going beyond lvl 4 just aren't there.

Appreciated the comments as always.

(in reply to jrlans)
Post #: 115
RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned. - 3/18/2010 10:44:33 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 3863
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline
Java (january 23rd - february 3rd 1942)


Japanese now have seized Singkawang and Kuching area. There are increased recon flights flown againts Palempang.

Now that Singapore has fallen I do expect to see somewhat imminent offensive here.

There has been plenty of sweep missions flown around Java by Zero's. He did catch some Buffalo's near Soereabaja and losses were 8:1 in favour of the japanese.
In general terms though I haven't engaged these raids. Instead I do let him burn supplies and increase his fatigue levels.

There are some +1800av worth of units at Batavia now. The forts are almost level 4 and rising. I did also dump in more supplies so this will not be an issue.

We also did and big surface combat at Balikpapan. Royal Navy suprised an enemy cruiser TF here and toasted it. My opponent stated that this was very much unexpected move in my part. Well this suits me just fine.

I have flown some recon missions and newly seized resource/industrial centers have fallen mostly 100% intact. I hate when this happens. There should be an option to start slowly doing sabotage but once can only wish for this.

The combat report is shown below:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Balikpapan at 64,97, Range 8,000 Yards

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
No Japanese losses

Japanese Ships
CL Isuzu, Shell hits 13, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
CL Abukuma, Shell hits 5, on fire
CL Tama, Shell hits 7, heavy fires
CL Kiso, Shell hits 10, heavy fires, heavy damage
CL Kitakami, Shell hits 25, and is sunk
CL Oi, Shell hits 6, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
DD Hatsushima, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
DD Sawakaze, Shell hits 11, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
DD Yukaze, Shell hits 4, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk

Allied Ships
CA Exeter, Shell hits 5, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
CL Dauntless
CL Ceres
CL Boise
CL Caledon, Shell hits 1
DD Stewart
DD Banckert
DD Stronghold
DD Tenedos
DD Electra
DD Encounter
DE Jumna


Nice and job well done for the british naval forces.

I did spot an TF heading towards Java from Celebes. Well, this is either an Mini KB or an BB TF. Recon shows battleships but I'am not convinced. Anyway, I did the match and if this is an invasion fleet than he is most likely landing at Den Pasar.

In order to cause more havoc I did an gamble here and decieded to move in and intercept. Next turn shows whether or not this paid off.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by aztez -- 3/18/2010 10:46:45 PM >

(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 116
RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned. - 3/18/2010 10:45:45 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 3863
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline
The battle near Balikpapan on ´february 3rd 1942...




Attachment (1)

(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 117
RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned. - 3/18/2010 10:46:28 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 3863
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline
Pacific (january 23rd - february 3rd 1942)


An map details the most significant gains in other areas.

Singapore did fall on february 3rd which is quite historical. Too bad we run out of luck at Johore Baru. The allied troops were just couple of miles away from Singapore before forced to retreat.

At Luzon there has been numerous ground assaults made by the japanese. To avoid same kind of disaster that happened aboce I have now ordered our troops to march into Bataan. This objective should be easily achievable.

Those are the main two stories in recap.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 118
RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned. - 3/19/2010 12:22:08 AM   
aztez

 

Posts: 3863
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline
Java (February 4th - 5th 1942)


"This game has been very intense"...

Well it really has been. The above stament was made by katsuragi aka warspite.

The PBY search information was rock solid and that unknown TF was indeed filled with battleships and the estimated target was Den Passar.

When adding those two things up the natural conclusion resulted to yet another surface combat action...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat, near Denpasar at 58,108, Range 23,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
BB Nagato, Shell hits 6
BB Fuso, Shell hits 1
BB Ise, Shell hits 3
BB Hyuga, Shell hits 1
CA Chokai, Shell hits 5, on fire
CA Kumano, Shell hits 3
DD Hamakaze
DD Tanikaze, Shell hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Arare, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Mikazuki
DD Yakaze, Shell hits 2, on fire

Allied Ships
CA Exeter, Shell hits 8, on fire
CL Dauntless, Shell hits 4, on fire
CL Ceres
CL Boise, Shell hits 1
CL Caledon, Shell hits 6, on fire
DD Stewart, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Banckert, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Stronghold
DD Tenedos, Shell hits 1
DD Electra, Shell hits 1
DD Encounter, Shell hits 1
DE Jumna, Shell hits 8, heavy fires, heavy damage


This was fun to watch in blow by blow action. I must admit that these sailors have seen fair share of action in past few days.

The damage levels were very hard to judge but the end result was that the japanese retreated leaving their escorts in our mercy. Too bad that most of our ships disbanded at Den Passar too after some Betty's showed up.

Next morning though...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Denpasar at 58,108, Range 12,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
DD Akikaze
PB Chitose Maru, Shell hits 1
xAK Goyo Maru
xAK Teikoku Maru, Shell hits 1
xAK Terukawa Maru
xAK Syohei Maru
xAK London Maru, Shell hits 1
xAP Asama Maru
xAP Buenos Aires Maru
xAP Huzi Maru
PB Kinsyo Maru #2, Shell hits 10, heavy fires, heavy damage

Allied Ships
CL Ceres
DD Banckert


Not bad but as said it could have been even better. Flip the coin and it could have been worse...

He did land some 4000 men here so they most likely will overrun the our small base force here.

Japanese got some revenge though. There were several Betty strikes flown againts the above combat TF and Soerabaja harbour was hit hard too.

In the end both sides got hit hard and just maybe we sunk few and took quite a few out of action for indefined period of time.

Here is the pic from the battle of Den Passar....





Attachment (1)

(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 119
RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned. - 3/19/2010 2:53:14 AM   
koontz

 

Posts: 274
Joined: 8/27/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: aztez


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Balikpapan at 64,97, Range 8,000 Yards

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
No Japanese losses

Japanese Ships
CL Isuzu, Shell hits 13, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
CL Abukuma, Shell hits 5, on fire
CL Tama, Shell hits 7, heavy fires
CL Kiso, Shell hits 10, heavy fires, heavy damage
CL Kitakami, Shell hits 25, and is sunk
CL Oi, Shell hits 6, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
DD Hatsushima, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
DD Sawakaze, Shell hits 11, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
DD Yukaze, Shell hits 4, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk

Allied Ships
CA Exeter, Shell hits 5, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
CL Dauntless
CL Ceres
CL Boise
CL Caledon, Shell hits 1
DD Stewart
DD Banckert
DD Stronghold
DD Tenedos
DD Electra
DD Encounter
DE Jumna


Congrats!

What an great victory!

CL Oi with her torpedo capacity i would have been devastated
as the IJN player.




_____________________________

Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.

"All warfare is based on deception. There is no place where espionage is not used. Offer the enemy bait to lure him."

(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: aztez (a) vs Katsuragi (j) ...lessons learned. Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   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

0.125