Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the Family
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Raid on Colombo

 
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: Raid on Colombo Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Raid on Colombo - 9/9/2011 7:43:32 PM   
DOCUP


Posts: 2348
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Looks like he is a little short on DDs.  Maybe send some subs out after him.   Yea its a good time to move on something in the Pacific.  Keep messing with his head.  There is a reason why there are psyops units in just about every military today.

doc

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 91
Intellgence on the KB - 9/9/2011 8:22:58 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2607
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
On PH Day he comiitted:

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 28
B5N2 Kate x 144
D3A1 Val x 126

....

Afternoon Air attack on Midway Island , at 158,91

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 26 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 44

....

Afternoon Air attack on Midway Island , at 158,91

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 26 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 42

==================================================================

Now 4 months later at Columbo I see the KB and the committment is:


Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 78
B5N2 Kate x 72
D3A1 Val x 67


Raid spotted at 39 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 14 minutes

Japanese aircraft
D3A1 Val x 9


Raid spotted at 46 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 16 minutes

Japanese aircraft
B5N2 Kate x 22
D3A1 Val x 42


Japanese aircraft
D3A1 Val x 25


Japanese aircraft
B5N2 Kate x 15


I am not sure how to use this pattern yet .. but I can get a pretty good feel for how many sortes the KB can fly at once and over a mission. I think each carrer is limited to 300 sorties per CV?

Out of 1800 sorites he has used just under 1/2 to sink some merchants. In addiition he has lost:

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N2 Kate: 7 destroyed, 13 damaged

Japanese aircraft losses
D3A1 Val: 1 damaged


Japanese aircraft losses
D3A1 Val: 1 damaged


Japanese aircraft losses
D3A1 Val: 1 damaged

7 Kates down, 13 damaged .. and 3 Vals damaged ...

I am not sure this is worth the effort but I guess we shall find out ...

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 92
RE: Raid on Colombo - 9/9/2011 8:30:09 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2607
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

Looks like he is a little short on DDs.  Maybe send some subs out after him.   Yea its a good time to move on something in the Pacific.  Keep messing with his head.  There is a reason why there are psyops units in just about every military today.

doc


Ya .. I had one sub in the area but .. he got him with the port attack ..the Trusty was comming back to Colimbo from the DEI but has to cut over to somewhere else to rearm after already unlaoding torps on his AK's ... but still it is time to raise some hell in the Pacific !! The Yorktown and Enterprise are already near Tabetuea .. they are heading to points more westward to look for trouble . my coast watchers say a bunch of ships are near Lae ..

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 93
RE: Raid on Colombo - 9/9/2011 9:16:06 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2607
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
Ok a little deduction .. he has 3 carriers with about 700 sorites and 3 carriers with about 600 or so sorities give or take 50 sorties. That equates to 3900 sorites total for the KB before having to rearm. Rough estimate will work here ...I count about 300 sorties on Colombo. He has plenty of punch left on those boats ..

He is still wondering how I figured out where the KB is right now and its exact compisition .. I will never tell Its got to be very unnverving although ...


(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 94
Operation: Bold Eagle -- Strike Tarawa - 9/10/2011 8:22:56 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2607
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
I think I have deicded to unleash 2 USA divisions on Tarawa. I say I think, because I am quite concerned that the Prep level at the time of the invasion will only be around 40. I am not sure how this affects the number of boys that will die on the reefs ...But this opporunity is just to good to pass up. Knowing exactly where the KB is right now and how far it is away from responding...it seems like the time for a Bold strike!


Tarawa has about 160 AV plus forts:

So ..three phases:

First load the 24 & 25th Divisions Prep level right now Level 25 bound for Tarawa on 4 AP's 2 AK's each. [No APA's in 1942 that makes my squeemish too]. That means 800 troops per AP off-loading 750 AV in 2 days. Supporting cast of seabees and BF's load on xAP's / xAK's to be landed after the smoke clears and the body count ...

Two SAG's are in the area now supported by a CVTF of the Big E and Yorktown. These SAG's will recombine to form a bombardment group and a amphib support group. The CVTF will spend 200 sorties on Ground Attack of Tarawa. After that they patrol for any SAG's wishing to intervine ..

Finally, 7 days from now the Anphb forces hit and shock attack. I expect given my experince about 4K causulties and 50% disruption.

Thoughts anybody? Is this doable or shall I wait?

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 95
RE: Operation: Bold Eagle -- Strike Tarawa - 9/11/2011 7:40:47 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3633
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

I think I have deicded to unleash 2 USA divisions on Tarawa. I say I think, because I am quite concerned that the Prep level at the time of the invasion will only be around 40. I am not sure how this affects the number of boys that will die on the reefs ...But this opporunity is just to good to pass up. Knowing exactly where the KB is right now and how far it is away from responding...it seems like the time for a Bold strike!


Tarawa has about 160 AV plus forts:

So ..three phases:

First load the 24 & 25th Divisions Prep level right now Level 25 bound for Tarawa on 4 AP's 2 AK's each. [No APA's in 1942 that makes my squeemish too]. That means 800 troops per AP off-loading 750 AV in 2 days. Supporting cast of seabees and BF's load on xAP's / xAK's to be landed after the smoke clears and the body count ...

Two SAG's are in the area now supported by a CVTF of the Big E and Yorktown. These SAG's will recombine to form a bombardment group and a amphib support group. The CVTF will spend 200 sorties on Ground Attack of Tarawa. After that they patrol for any SAG's wishing to intervine ..

Finally, 7 days from now the Anphb forces hit and shock attack. I expect given my experince about 4K causulties and 50% disruption.

Thoughts anybody? Is this doable or shall I wait?


Unless I have completely misread what you have written above, you have badly miscalculated the "over the beach" landing parameters. Correct me if I'm wrong but this is how I comprehend your set up. NB I have also taken into account your comments in the amphibious disruption thread you have opened concurrently in the War Room sub-forum.

1. You have 2 US army infantry divisions prepping for Tarawa. Their combined Assault Value is 750.

2. You plan to embark these two divisions on a total of 8 AP plus 4 AK.

3. The support troops (quantity not specified) will be carried on xAP and xAK (number of ships also not specified)

4. You intend to fully disembark the two infantry divisions in two turns. Or to phrase it somewhat differently, you expect to have 750 Assault Value landed after two days.

5. The current Preparation Level of the two infantry divisions is 25 but you anticipate it will be about level 40 by the time they actually disembark (see thread in War Room).

6. You are actually quite concerned about disruption caused by the low preparation level (again see War Room thread).

7. Travel time from embarkation port to Tarawa is seven days.

If I haven't totally misread your post, then these are the problems.

(a) You have failed to take into account that a division accrues disruption for every day it spends on board ships. This travel disruption is capped at a maximum of 50. In this instance, as the travel time is only a week, the travel disruption gained will only be about 7 points. Not a lot but you are looking at a low preparation level - see points (h) and (i) below.

(b) You are far too optimistic that the preparation level will jump from 25 to 40 in only seven days. It would be much more prudent to expect that the preparation level will only increase by 1 each additional day. Hence it would only be around level 32 by the time they land on the beach.

(c) The auto attack will occur on day one of the landing, not on the second day when you anticipate landing the full 750 Assault Value. Hence, to fully avail yourself of the preponderance of force you are sending, you have to aim to fully disembark on day one.

(d) Each AP and AK will only disembark 600 "combattant" points in a day (see s.6.3.3.3.2.1 of the manual). With the infantry divisions sea lift being provided by only 8 AP and 4 AK, that means you can only unload 7200 "combattant" points per day.

(e) I don't have before me the transport load costs of the two specific infantry divisions. However, about a year ago (perhaps less) in Speedy's AAR v Fabertong, I went into some detail regarding Allied invasion capabilities of atolls in 1942. If my memory serves me right, each American infantry division in combat readiness load needs well over 20k (actually somewhere in the vicinity of 23k-25k) in sea lift "combattant" points.

(f) You haven't specified the actual carrying capacity of the twelve ships ( 8 AP + 4 AK) but I have strong reservations that they can completely carry the two divisions.

(g) The combination of points (d), (e) and (f) above is that there is no way those twelve ships are going to fully unload over two days, the two infantry divisions. And remember, the ideal is to fully unload on day one.

(h) You will not get a good answer to your basic question of how much disruption will be associated with the low preparation level. The reason being that it is a random number. See this old but short thread:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2286999&mpage=1&key=amphibious%2Cdisruption�

As always, the algorithms are not disclosed but I think it is fair to assume that the lower the preparation level is, the more likely it is that the die roll spread for attendant disruption will be larger. But that is purely my speculation.

(i) What can be said is that a few AARs/threads have disclosed instances of Allied players attacking well garrisoned atolls with preparation in the range of 30-40, and the results were not pretty. Those experiences need not necessarily apply here because the quality of the Tarawa garrison may not be high, and the fortification level might be quite low.

(j) The risk you face is not so much disruption but whether you will unload sufficient force on day one to not be confronted with an auto re-embarkation. The program compares the size of the defenders against the size of the invaders (IIRC leadership of the attackers is also taken into account) and if there is too great a difference in favour of the defenders, an auto re-embarkation may result.



The bottom line is that if you can fully unload 750 Assault Value in one day, against a poor quality garrison (say a Naval Guard unit providing the garrison "backbone"), facing only a fortification level not higher than 3, and supported by a seven day heavy naval bombardment of Tarawa, the unsubtle size of the invading sledgehammer may be successful.

Alfred

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 96
RE: Turn 90! - 9/11/2011 8:11:31 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3633
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

... I will just deal with the submarine warfare thing .. but I think the balance is way too out of wack. I just do not agree with how casterated the USN DD's are intially, and how powerfull and agressive the IJN submarines are.... One tanker was sunk while sailing through no less than 16 DD's, escoerted by another 4 DD's and through 3 PA arcs, detected ..


Am catching up with this AAR hence why I'm dealing with a few posts made a few days ago.

Regarding the 3 PA arcs (and by extension the 16 DDs).

In terms of spotting enemy subs, there is a world of difference between aerial "Naval Search" and "ASW" missions. Generally speaking, planes on a "Naval Search" mission will not generate a high enough Detection Level ("DL") to mark the sub TF on the map. You may get a message that a periscope is sighted at hex x/y or something similar but the Sub TF symbol will not appear. You need to be running a dedicated "ASW" air mission to generate a high enough DL for the symbol to appear.

Of course, whether a "sighting" occurs at all in either air mission, is greatly dependent on the respective pilot skill. Plus at any stage of the game, anti submarine naval forces are much more likely to react and prosecute an effective attack if the "eye in the sky" has actually pinpointed the exact position of a sub TF (ie symbol displayed on map).

You don't say so, but I rather suspect that like most Allied players, you are using your PA (and carrier bombers) predominantly on "Naval Search" rather than "ASW". Most Allied players place more value on knowing the location of the KB and other major surface assets.

Alfred

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 97
RE: Raid on Colombo - 9/11/2011 8:23:52 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3633
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

... Noumea got 2 more engineer units 810.811 aviation eng group, landed today and they are starting to build up this port/airfield. Once I have a level 4 airfield I will start on Koumac. That base can be built up to level 7 rather quickly, and then overbuilt to level 10 if I need to make the investment...


Won't happen.

You cannot build any port or airfield to level 10. A very few bases start off a scenario with a level 10 infrastructure in situ but that is set by the scenario designer, not by the player.

As a player, you can expand a SPS of 6 up to level 9. A SPS of 7 can be expanded to level 9. A SPS of 8 can be expanded to level 9.

Alfred

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 98
RE: Raid on Colombo - 9/11/2011 8:38:56 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3633
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
You don't have to rely on Tracker to identify bases short on supplies.

Besides the in game aids which are really just as good, you can simply rely upon the visual cues provided on the map. A red exclamation mark means the base has less than 1x its required supply, a yellow exclamation mark means its supply stockpile is less than 2x the required amount.

There is no similar visual cue for raw materials but there are very few Allied bases who are reliant on sea borne imports of raw materials to feed their industry. For these you can bring up the industry screen, shortcut key "J" to see where the shortfall is. Note you can filter which particular type of industry you wish to check.

Alfred

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 99
RE: Raid on Colombo - 9/11/2011 10:27:33 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3633
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

1275psi .. We are at March, 14th 1942

There are about 22 AK and 10 old AP's at Colombo. Besides the old Battleship and the DD's I cannot see a long term function for hitting Colombo with so many operations require the KB support right now. Still, my opponets email refects more his joy of sinking ships, than advancing an overall strategy. But I am a newbie so maybe there is a long term plan that is supported by sinking some mechants and scattering TF's in the Indian Ocean for two weeks or so ......One of the IJFB players who has played this game out from start to finish might comment. I read the AAR's and the IJ players that just terorrize without a long term strategic plan seem to last to about late 1943, and then quit. So I have no real basis to understand the strategic implecations of raiding as a tool to accomplish some long term goal.

What I think happened here besides the fact that I was over using a very vulnerable port (for example The Patrol Aircraft are still in the 40's and did not give warning of the KB to the South Southeast reporting them as "CL's") Is that my opponet got off balance with my last raid. He wishes to use the KB as a platform to terrorize rather than as a platform to further his overall strategic plan. I really misunderstood his strategic mindset, or my last raid has him thinking that somehow this will strike fear and timidity ..[I had been quite deliberate executing a "Brave Sir Robin" strategy to this point until the last raid.]

I also think the Moulmein raid was enabled by this strategy of using the KB to do random damage. This raid hurt him very deeply I think. His email tone has changed considerably since drowning an IJA force into the Indian Ocean ....

However, I am a newbie, so sinking 22 or so merchants given 379 in play right now might be the move that wins this game. I do not know. I do know that this will slow the game down quite considerably as I seach WitPTracker for bases needing supplies, click 3 - 7 times [waypoints around submarines and stuff] and then manually allocate every single convoy rather than just the ones that have to go thorugh dangerious territory So this raid managed to make my game experience suck .. [I like the logistics around operations .. I hate looking up to see if Timbuk Tu has enough supply ....]



Well, if your opponent is really a logistically minded player, and to play AE well one simply must handle logistics well, the KB raid on Ceylon can make great sense.

For the Allied player, China is a very difficult theatre to run. The number one problem faced by the Allied player is a lack of supplies in China. Chinese logistics become really difficult when;

(1) the Burma road is cut, and

(2) when Rangoon is captured by Japan and the Allied player therey loses the capability of dropping large amounts of supply at Rangoon. From the Rangoon supply depots, the Allied player can manually "push" supply through to China. This "pushed" supply can be many times greater than that delivered by the Burma Road.

Destroying your Bay of Bengal cargo carrying capacity is an indirect means of accomplishing point (2) above. Whether your opponent has this tactical approach in mind, only he could answer.

Alfred

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 100
RE: Raid on Colombo - 9/11/2011 1:39:26 PM   
DOCUP


Posts: 2348
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Nice points Alfred on all your posts thank you.

doc

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 101
RE: Raid on Colombo - 9/11/2011 3:25:50 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 6974
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
Allied Transports

The following classes of xAKs can and should be converted over to xAPs. Many start the game in India area, but I have most converted on their way to USA at Cape Town.

Dominion M (spd 13 with 5550 capacity before conversion, endurance 14,600)
Pacific L (spd 12 with 3900 capacity before conversion, endurance 12,000)
C2 Cargo (available to do so in 2/42, spd 16, endurance 13,500)
C1-A Cargo (available to convert in 2/42, spd 14, endurance 19,300)

I've included some info to help you find these class of ships so you can convert them.


_____________________________


(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 102
Tarawa - 9/11/2011 3:34:22 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2607
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
Ok Alfred .. I was thinking:

6861 Troops 16792 Cargo that I could get the troops off first .. they shock ....

what I reallly really need to be thinking about it 23653 divded into 8 ships Thus 16 ships total for two division. Excellent feedback ..

I can load one divisioin on AP/AK's and the other on xAP's/xAK's.

On Colombo .. I am not thinking he is thinking of China but this is an excellent point I did not think of doing I was pushing supply towatd Mandaly and Prome acutally supplying fighter that right now are getting 3:1 atriition on his Oscars and Bombers....

Ok Using all the feedback in this thread and loading up now .. back later ..

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 103
RE: Tarawa - 9/11/2011 4:06:37 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3633
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
Yes, but the unload rate on xAP's/xAK's is only 250 per day. You'll just need a lot of them for the second division.

When I did that atoll sealift calculation, I came to the conclusion that there is sufficient Allied sealift capacity to mount a 2 division invasion. But you really have to concentrate just about all your troop transport ships.

The other thing to remember is that the transport load cost shown on the LCU screen, is for commercial cargo packing. An Amphibious TF automatically loads on a combat readiness basis, and that is 80% of commercial cargo packing.

Accepting at face value that the identified 23653 "combattant" points for a single division is after adjusting for the combat readiness packing, I still don't see how 8 ships are going to disembark the division fully in one day. You are loading each of those 8 ships with 2957 "combattant" points which is still far higher than the daily unload rate of 600. Plus that is not taking into account the tricky exercise of balancing "troop" with "cargo" requirements with the ship capacities.

Now as to your expectation of unloading on day 1 a total of 6861 troop and 16792 cargo, that is only going to roughly equate to a 230 unadjusted Assault Value. Putting aside the disruption issue, and the equally significant disablement/drowning casualties resulting from any enemy CD gunfire, you really are relying on the Tarawa garrison being much weaker than the ball park figure previously given of about 160 unadjusted Assault Value.

The more I think about it, the more convinced I am you would benefit from looking up Speedy's AAR. The last entry in there was made about 3 weeks ago.

Alfred

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 104
RE: Raid on Colombo - 9/11/2011 4:57:20 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2607
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Allied Transports

The following classes of xAKs can and should be converted over to xAPs. Many start the game in India area, but I have most converted on their way to USA at Cape Town.

Dominion M (spd 13 with 5550 capacity before conversion, endurance 14,600)
Pacific L (spd 12 with 3900 capacity before conversion, endurance 12,000)
C2 Cargo (available to do so in 2/42, spd 16, endurance 13,500)
C1-A Cargo (available to convert in 2/42, spd 14, endurance 19,300)

I've included some info to help you find these class of ships so you can convert them.



Yes excellent advice .. I converted mine at Columbo and then sent them to the United States. They have been running forces between SF and PH, and PH to various points from Tabatuea to Noumea (all require Amphib initally because of a lack of level 3 ports to start ) ... but now these platforms are going to be missioned to drop stuff upon the shores of Tarawa and subsequently depending on how well this goes Ocean Island.

One thing I like about the Pacific L class is that they do not waste space since I am not loading more than 800 troops/Cargo on each one anyway for an offensive mission.. it is such a waste to load 800 on a Presdient class AP for example. That is why they have been working extra hard on moving stuff from friendly to friendly port using the President Monroe class and I did not even consider them for an amphib mission unitl the 3/43 upgrade to APA.

But this is great advice for the newbie like me ..

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 105
RE: Raid on Colombo - 9/11/2011 5:11:55 PM   
vettim89


Posts: 3306
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline
Also consider that two divisions will be seriously overstacking the Atoll. As such there supply consumption will be enormous. There is a very good chance you will find your self with two highly disrupted Inf Div with no supplies after day two. I really think this is a "Bridge Too Far" scenario in the making

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 106
RE: Raid on Colombo - 9/11/2011 6:14:34 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3633
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Also consider that two divisions will be seriously overstacking the Atoll. As such there supply consumption will be enormous. There is a very good chance you will find your self with two highly disrupted Inf Div with no supplies after day two. I really think this is a "Bridge Too Far" scenario in the making


Which is precisely why the operation must be structured to capture Tarawa on day 1. Then the the two divisions can immediately be lifted off Tarawa. If the operation can't be so structured, then vettim89's comment will be a most suitable epitah.

Ultimately, by far the best defence of any size 1 island (albeit Taraw is a size 2) is to sink the enemy fleet before it arrives.

Alfred

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 107
RE: Raid on Colombo - 9/11/2011 6:34:50 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2607
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Also consider that two divisions will be seriously overstacking the Atoll. As such there supply consumption will be enormous. There is a very good chance you will find your self with two highly disrupted Inf Div with no supplies after day two. I really think this is a "Bridge Too Far" scenario in the making


Tarawa is a small atoll with a stacking limit of 30,000 so that part of the mission will not be the issue. [We had this debate on the War Room posting] However, you make an interesting point and this is a very interesting problem. I took Alfred's advice to serious considerationI really never looked at the big cargo number but the troops number thinking if I can get troops on shore they can shock. But ... one really needs to divide 23K by 600. That is 40 ships! I can't load 40 ships on the dock!

The other part of this equation is the 160 AV. The solution might be to reduce Tarawa using Dive Bombers and bombardment [Nemo is on the CENPAC Staff ] . I have 30K supply on AKE's at Tabateua that will support 15 bombardment missions. That is one turn there, one turn to rearm and one turn hit and back. My previous experience with bombardment with just the Mississpii, I took out 500 troops destroyed and 10% disrupton. I can put 7 BB's on target each mission. Combined with Dive Bombing by 130 Dauntless DB's I am thinking we can reduce Tarawa by 50%? This will make the slower unloading over say 4 days still feasible. Then the question becomes .. is this enough to make the Amphib mission stick?

So .. next turn the Big E and Yorktown begin to rain hell on earth, with a 7 BB Bomabrdment TF 3 turns later, and I have a recon air unit on Tabetuea to check the results. In the meantime I will load up the Amphib TF's. That will take 4 days at least. During these 4 days I will check on progress and decide the mission.



(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 108
Tarawa - 9/11/2011 8:36:27 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2607
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
Ok the rules say "Regular Transport Ships. (Commissioned Naval AP/AK) in Amphibious
TFs, unload at a Rate of 600 points per ship per turn." Somehow I was thinking per phase .. that means given 15 AP's & 2AK's -- 5100 Cargo points per phase. I think I get the full turn to unload before my opponet can decide to try and push me into the sea. That means 10,200 cargo points on the beach before he reacts. We have 23K cargo points to complete the landing in 2 days for 384 AV minus causualties and disrupton from the landing.

Alfred's right .. Its going to have to be one division on the beach and the CVTF and SAG will have to reduce Tarawa to AV 100 before the invasion starts. I am going to assume a linear regression line and if 4.8K = 160 measn each AV = 30 men 100 AV = 3000 men.

Let see what 130 DB's and 7 BB's can do to make that number happen. In the meantime we load up the 24th division onto 15 AP's and 2 AK's.

Godspeed . I hope this is not worse than the real Tarawa ...

Sometime this week I will update the thread s to the affects of DB and BB's ...

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 109
RE: Tarawa - 9/12/2011 8:25:13 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2607
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
I reloaded ther 24th Division on 18AP's and 2AK's this turn after completly unloading. I can do this if I completly undock everything and only have these ships docked. The smaller the AP the better since it does not take up tonnage space and we are trying to spead the wealth so to speak.

CR had the most interesting posting on GreyJoy's thread. In particular, we defined just what it takes to accomplish the strategy of a Late 1944 early 1945 invasion of Formosa -- 10 Divisions and a lot of support in terms of CV/CVE's.

Still I think this is the goal rather than the DEI as first thought. No Malaria to contend with on that route ...

We are still workign on invading Tarawa .. it will take another 10 days to get stuff set up ...3 CV's arrive into theater in 24 days. The Saratoga @ PH. The LadyLex from Seattle, and the Hornet from Balboa. With 5 carriers in theater it is time to think about pushing a little harder.

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 110
RE: Tarawa - 9/12/2011 9:51:30 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2607
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
We hit Tarawa again .. this time with 2 ol' BB and some friends. One thing .. a lot more varation in this attack. The first attack killed about 100 men and disabled 4 Non-combat squads .. this attack is reported to have only killed 13 men:

The first attack of 25 FEB 1942:

Night Naval bombardment of Tarawa at 136,128

Allied Ships
BB Mississippi
CL Trenton
CL Detroit

Japanese ground losses:
116 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 7 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled



Runway hits 3
Port hits 2

BB Mississippi firing at 53rd Naval Guard Unit
CL Trenton firing at Tarawa
CL Detroit firing at 53rd Naval Guard Unit


Now a follow up attack on 17 MAR 1942:

Night Naval bombardment of Tarawa at 136,128

Allied Ships
BB Mississippi
BB Idaho
CA Chicago
CL Trenton
CL Detroit

Japanese ground losses:
13 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled



Runway hits 1
Port hits 1

BB Mississippi firing at Tarawa
BB Idaho firing at 53rd Naval Guard Unit
CA Chicago firing at 53rd Naval Guard Unit
CL Trenton firing at Tarawa
CL Detroit firing at Tarawa



The most significant piece of information is the 53rd Naval Guard Unit. If this is the only unit present -- he has simply left the orginal invasion force on the island. I beleive this starts out around 58 AV.

The other significant part of this raid is that the results can vary extermly .. I cannot count on a set amount of missions yielding some set amount of damage. Even within some reason. This is going to take more effort than a couple of raids. Disbaled squads heal too qucikly for my liking and only count on invasion day. I think I will remain quiet next turn.

< Message edited by Crackaces -- 9/12/2011 10:04:25 PM >

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 111
RE: Tarawa - 9/12/2011 10:11:28 PM   
DOCUP


Posts: 2348
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Never know whats going to happen with a bombardment TF.  Atleast you ate up some of there supply.

doc

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 112
RE: Tarawa - 9/12/2011 11:10:35 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2607
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

Never know whats going to happen with a bombardment TF.  Atleast you ate up some of there supply.

doc


I sure hope my BB's are more effective supporting an Amphib TF .. this will be the critical time.

We are now D-DAY-10 ...a little delay unloading and reloading the 24th Dvision..

Also .. quite a few more submarines have shown up at PH ... I have contacts on 5 ...These will have to be reckoned with on the way out of port ..

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 113
18 MAR 1942 - 9/13/2011 7:16:11 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2607
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
My Amphib operation took its first baby steps toward Tarawa. I have to skirt the coasts of the Islands and then breakout south of Hilo. PH is cramed with IJN submarines. The Baker Island Area is also a death trap of sorts and will need to be negotiated.

Funny little action today off Noumea:

ASW attack near Noumea at 114,160

Japanese Ships
SS I-17

Allied Ships
DD Vampire
DD Kortenaer
DD Witte de With



SS I-17 is sighted by escort
DD Kortenaer fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Witte de With fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Witte de With fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Witte de With fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Witte de With fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Witte de With fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub

..
But he gets a crack at the real force:

Sub attack near Noumea at 114,160

Japanese Ships
SS I-17

Allied Ships
CA Australia
BC Repulse
CA Canberra
CL De Ruyter
DD Selfridge
DD Scout
DD Voyager



SS I-17 launches 6 torpedoes at CA Australia
DD Scout attacking submerged sub ....
SS I-17 eludes DD Scout by diving deep
....


Good news .. My forces are reacting first for once ..

Now for some bad news ....

Submarine attack near Port Moresby at 97,131

Japanese Ships
SS I-15

Allied Ships
AVP Arend, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage



AVP Arend is sighted by SS I-15
SS I-15 launches 2 torpedoes at AVP Arend


I have 6 more APD's coming to do a fast transport from Oz to PM. About 4 days away. PM is in deep trouble and needs supplies.

More later ..

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 114
RE: 18 MAR 1942 - 9/14/2011 2:52:45 AM   
DOCUP


Posts: 2348
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Crackaces

Do you control the skies over PM?  I know your having issues with your ASW forces being on break whenever a sub is around.  Something I did againist my opponent in our Canal game.  I send some small AKs to PM with auto disband on.  Then pull one out dock and unload. Disband that one pick the next AK and so on. 

doc

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 115
RE: 18 MAR 1942 - 9/14/2011 4:25:28 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2607
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

Crackaces

Do you control the skies over PM?  I know your having issues with your ASW forces being on break whenever a sub is around.  Something I did againist my opponent in our Canal game.  I send some small AKs to PM with auto disband on.  Then pull one out dock and unload. Disband that one pick the next AK and so on. 

doc


Excellent Suggestion! Right now he has a sub right there in the only hex I can get into port and this guy is hell .. and no I do not control the skies .. yet .. but .. this will be the most interesting turn so far ...

The IJN has decided to raid Baker Island. The KB cannot possibly yet be within range as they just raided Colombo. Thus the picture below .. no additional intellgence besides the fact that a mini 2 CVL CVTF with escorts (18 ships total? including 3 CA's and 4 CL's?) decided to show up and raid Baker Island.

I have the BigE and Yorktown south of Tabetuea they are headed full speed to the spot on the end of the arrow . I have 25 PA's from Baker Island and Tabetuea covering all possiblites of his movement at cruise and full speed. With Luck its 2 CV's vs. 2 CVL's at 200 miles .. with fate I miss him ...Its clear skies expected and he is raiding Baker Island. I can not think of a more perfect situation ....I will post how this goes ...




Attachment (1)

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 116
RE: 18 MAR 1942 - 9/14/2011 4:37:32 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6084
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
....finger crossing...

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 117
RE: 18 MAR 1942 - 9/14/2011 6:22:17 PM   
zuluhour


Posts: 3088
Joined: 1/20/2011
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Beware Tarawa. The CVTF could be a lure into Netty land. fingers crosssed.
As a follow up, If Crack has an aggressive TF leader on say a 5 or 6 react could he be inadvertantly lured into a Netty trap?

< Message edited by zuluhour -- 9/14/2011 6:24:15 PM >

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 118
22 MAR 1942 Baker Island - 9/14/2011 9:52:07 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2607
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
Do you remember that scene from Midway where the damaged aircraft were crashing on the decks but everybody was jublant ...

First, we did not meet exactly where we thought and in fact he went southwest rather than southeast as I was tracking .. so first thing in the morning both TF's find each other and exchange pleasentries.. [I sure wish I could write like Cuttlefish or the little ship that could One problem .. the BIG E cancelled their attack and did not fly ??????

The IJN take first shot ...


Morning Air attack on TF, near Howland Island at 146,130

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 45 minutes

Japanese aircraft
B5N1 Kate x 30
D3A1 Val x 11



Allied aircraft
F4F-3A Wildcat x 13
F4F-3 Wildcat x 14


Japanese aircraft losses
B5N1 Kate: 16 destroyed, 4 damaged
D3A1 Val: 6 destroyed, 1 damaged


Allied Ships
CA Minneapolis
CV Enterprise
CV Yorktown


A Kamakasie suddenly tried their luck:

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid detected at 38 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 20 minutes

Japanese aircraft
B4Y1 Jean x 3



Allied aircraft
F4F-3A Wildcat x 6
F4F-3 Wildcat x 9


Japanese aircraft losses
B4Y1 Jean: 2 destroyed


A fternoon Air attack on TF, near Howland Island at 146,130

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 44 minutes

Japanese aircraft
B4Y1 Jean x 2
B5N1 Kate x 14



Allied aircraft
F4F-3A Wildcat x 12
F4F-3 Wildcat x 14


Japanese aircraft losses
B5N1 Kate: 10 destroyed


Now the USN have a say ...

Morning Air attack on TF, near Tarawa at 144,128

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid spotted at 40 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 45



Allied aircraft
F4F-3A Wildcat x 12
F4F-3 Wildcat x 13
SBD-3 Dauntless x 48
TBD-1 Devastator x 12


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
SBD-3 Dauntless: 16 destroyed, 11 damaged
TBD-1 Devastator: 5 destroyed, 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
CVL Shoho, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CVL Ryujo, Bomb hits 4, on fire
CVL Zuiho, Bomb hits 2


Round number two ...

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Tarawa at 144,128

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 40 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 12



Allied aircraft
F4F-3A Wildcat x 11
F4F-3 Wildcat x 13
SBD-3 Dauntless x 16


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat: 1 destroyed
SBD-3 Dauntless: 1 destroyed, 12 damaged

Japanese Ships
CVL Zuiho
CVL Shoho
CVL Ryujo, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage


Shoho 1 Hit critical she is on fire
Ryujo, 6, hits she is on fire
Zuiho, 2 Hits and operational?


USN: The BIG E ...She has her full complement including fighters! The Yorktown did all of this this alone! Now will he leave the carriers behind [got to be 1/2 speed at least?] and keep his CA's with them to defend? That is the question?

(in reply to zuluhour)
Post #: 119
RE: 22 MAR 1942 Baker Island - 9/14/2011 10:06:00 PM   
DOCUP


Posts: 2348
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Outstanding Crack.  Go after them again. I would say atleast one of those carriers won't be launching any planes tom.  Just my two cents.

doc

(in reply to Crackaces)
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: Raid on Colombo 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

0.122