Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars: Mountain InfantryPandora: Eclipse of Nashira Announced! 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 War
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: LOST VICTORIES

 
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: LOST VICTORIES Page: <<   < prev  66 67 [68] 69 70   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/10/2013 8:10:14 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6095
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
May 21, 43

PTs everywhere...

they arrived at Munda....followed by a bombardment TF...i hate PTs

Another Bombardment TF bombarded Lautem ...my subs didn't score a single hit, despite two attempts...

A bait TF composed of 2 DDs attracted my Frances 1 hexes south of Samulaki...and my Frances and Zeros got slaughtered by his LRCAP

Brad put at sea several transport TFs, while moving out of Darwin some troops (to the south)... i bet these are all baits...not a single APA spotted...just xAKs... but not less than 4 big TF north of Darwin... clearly he wants to destroy my LBA before attempting a real invasion

Munda is now impossible to hold and Tulagi, Russell and Lunga are already isolated...damn too fast


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Munda at 111,134, Range 11,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CL Kashima
AMC Kiyosumi Maru

Allied Ships
PT-151
PT-152
PT-153
PT-154
PT-155
PT-156
PT-159
PT-160
PT-162
PT-163
PT-164
PT-165

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Lautem at 72,115

Japanese Ships
SS RO-34

Allied Ships
CL Achilles
CL Montpelier
CL Honolulu
CL Richmond
CL Leander
DD Craven
DD Fox
DD Shaw

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Lautem at 72,115

Allied Ships
CL Montpelier
CL Honolulu
CL Richmond
CL Achilles
CL Leander
DD Fox
DD Shaw
DD Fanning
DD Craven
DD Chevalier

Japanese ground losses:
239 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 15 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled

Airbase hits 8
Runway hits 22
Port hits 1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Munda at 111,134

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M3 Nell: 7 damaged
Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 2 damaged
A6M2 Zero: 7 damaged
H6K4 Mavis: 1 damaged

Allied Ships
DD Ellet
DD Woodworth
DD McCalla
DD Lardner

Japanese ground losses:
70 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 5 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Vehicles lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Airbase hits 2
Runway hits 15
Port hits 5



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Lautem at 73,116

Japanese Ships
SS I-171, hits 10

Allied Ships
DD Craven
CL Montpelier
CL Honolulu
CL Richmond
CL Leander
DD Fox
DD Shaw
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Selaroe at 77,119

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 47 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 14 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 16
P1Y1 Frances x 6

Allied aircraft
P-40K Warhawk x 4
F4F-4 Wildcat x 14
F4U-1 Corsair x 2

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 8 destroyed
P1Y1 Frances: 1 destroyed, 3 damaged
P1Y1 Frances: 1 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
DD Aylwin






Attachment (1)

(in reply to princep01)
Post #: 2011
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/10/2013 8:56:13 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6095
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
So the situation is quite clear.

The allies are ready to advance in the Solomons. I think they'll land at Tulagi and probably at Munda (or they'll bypass it).
At the same time the allies are ready to make another attempt in southern DEI and possibly against PGN (i think using paras here).

Problem is that Brad uses a lot of PTs and baits for my LBAs, so every attempt to distrupt his landings with my surface assets are problematic, and i don't wanna waste my precious LBA bombers...

what to do?

The CVs are kept in the shades between Truk and Rabaul for the moment... while Kaga is moving slowly back to Japan for R&R (20 flt damage)...i cannot risk her in front line duties

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 2012
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/10/2013 10:06:13 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6095
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
May 22, 1943

Another bad turn. Enemy P-38s swept at 39k feet Munda, slaughtering my Tojos... i reminded Brad that our HR should limit the P-38e below 31k feet...but that wouldn't change much the overall result... i'm being kicked around

My Nells took off from Koepang against his bait (2 DDs) south of Babar... and found 50 planes on LRTCAP... don't know if all thse baits and PTs are really kosher... probably yes, even if now Brad is really using them a lot and everywhere

More Baits (AMs) appeared one hex west of Terapo and near Onnekotan Java (east of Munda)... hate to lose planes against these useless ships

Enemy CVEs based at Darwin... enemy CVs still around Ndeni... lots of activities at Townsville, with many ships and planes gathering there...

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 2013
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/10/2013 11:45:47 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6095
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
May 23, 1943

a HUGE TF is closing to Tulagi... as predicted. APAs, LSTs and many support ships. A big landing....

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 2014
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/11/2013 12:01:19 AM   
princep01

 

Posts: 934
Joined: 8/7/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
Ser Greyjoy, on those PTs and AM baits and pests, have you ever tried sending fighters in to strafe (100').  Pick the ones least likely to have LRCAP overhead and see if you can mow some of the little buggers down.

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 2015
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/11/2013 9:24:17 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6095
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: princep01

Ser Greyjoy, on those PTs and AM baits and pests, have you ever tried sending fighters in to strafe (100').  Pick the ones least likely to have LRCAP overhead and see if you can mow some of the little buggers down.


My master, i've been thinking of it, but i'm not that kneen to waste precious fighter groups (i badly need them to protect the few bases i have as operative - those not knocked out by his bombardments)... but will probably try tomorrow and see how it goes (but flak is much more powerfull in DBB so i don't know if that's a great idea)


May 25, 1943

Ok, the enemy landed something like 20,000 men at Tulagi, unopposed. Covered by Karaikira and Thousands Ships Bay's CAP, the allies used several APA/LST/AKs and landed something like a division. My garrison there has no hope of relief...out of supplies and completely isolated, those guys will fall at the very first attack. I won't engage...not now. Not there, where the allies have their dreaded PT/DDs swarms

At the very same time what seems to be an invasion TF is assembling near Portland Roads, while the "baits" fell back to Darwin...

We're using this time to send 3 base forces and some 4 engineers units to northern PGN and more infantry units are arriving at Singapore and from there to Western Sumatra and Thailand.

Marcus and Wake are garrisoned as best as i can, while the Aleutinas should be safe untill the winter arrives...

(in reply to princep01)
Post #: 2016
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/11/2013 9:25:10 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6095
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
Oh, and finally my prayers did work! After hundreds of turns, in the last 2 ones we bagged 2 subs (Ambon and Rabaul) with the dreaded type 93 mine

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 2017
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/11/2013 10:55:00 AM   
obvert


Posts: 6828
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


May 25, 1943

Ok, the enemy landed something like 20,000 men at Tulagi, unopposed. Covered by Karaikira and Thousands Ships Bay's CAP, the allies used several APA/LST/AKs and landed something like a division. My garrison there has no hope of relief...out of supplies and completely isolated, those guys will fall at the very first attack. I won't engage...not now. Not there, where the allies have their dreaded PT/DDs swarms



As you know from your game with rader, the Allies can eventually move through here with close support from LBA on nearby bases and the PT/DD everywhere. But this is not where they want to be moving at this stage, so slowing and fighting them here helps a bit.

If he uses the PT alone I wonder if you could send those older DD or the faster E against them in the DEI. Four quick DD can do a lot of damage to PTs, but of course it helps if there is good moon and if there isn't a bombardment TF coming next. Sounds like it would be dicey in that area, but maybe worth a shot in spots.

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 2018
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/11/2013 11:11:01 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6095
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


May 25, 1943

Ok, the enemy landed something like 20,000 men at Tulagi, unopposed. Covered by Karaikira and Thousands Ships Bay's CAP, the allies used several APA/LST/AKs and landed something like a division. My garrison there has no hope of relief...out of supplies and completely isolated, those guys will fall at the very first attack. I won't engage...not now. Not there, where the allies have their dreaded PT/DDs swarms



As you know from your game with rader, the Allies can eventually move through here with close support from LBA on nearby bases and the PT/DD everywhere. But this is not where they want to be moving at this stage, so slowing and fighting them here helps a bit.

If he uses the PT alone I wonder if you could send those older DD or the faster E against them in the DEI. Four quick DD can do a lot of damage to PTs, but of course it helps if there is good moon and if there isn't a bombardment TF coming next. Sounds like it would be dicey in that area, but maybe worth a shot in spots.



He has mined all my islands in the DEI...heavily...and i already lost too many DDs to spare them for these missions. I wanna keep my bullets for when i will really need them (even if i sink 8 PTs so what?...he simply can re-build them immediately at Darwin!)...

In the Solomons...yes, i've done the same. He has a good combo of Fletchers DDs and PTs...which is exactly what i don't want to fight right now. I'm falling back with my defences here...there isn't that much i can do. The whole south pacific is doomed anyway. What i need now is to build a strong perimeter here: Kwalajein-Kusiae-Ponape-Truk-Mariannas-Hansa Bay/Hollandia-Biak and Pelieu.

But i think he'll need most of 1943 to advance towards Rabaul, so i should be fine with this time-line

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 2019
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/11/2013 11:22:44 AM   
veji1

 

Posts: 958
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline
I honestly would raise the PT issue at Babar and Saumlaki... Having PTs just cross 200 miles of openwater like that, to just go and park on your islands without local fuel dumps etc just sounds absurd to me...

I would raise it not because Qball is being dishonest or anything, the game engine let's it happen, but because with this mod that already emulates the Jap situation way better than in stock (supply and AS issue, resulting in closed AFs etc..) he doesn't need to use that and it gives him an advantage that is not in the spirit of the game you are playing.

There wouldn't be anything dishonourable about raising the issue at least.

my 2 cents anyway.

_____________________________

Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 2020
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/11/2013 12:17:10 PM   
Itdepends

 

Posts: 693
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
He must be refueling the PT's with something or they'd be accumulating system damage like anything- a mother ship with larger bunkers. RE current options- you really want to be going after his assault shipping- it's one of his most valuable assets. What's he mining with in the DEI? Aerial minelaying?

(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 2021
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/11/2013 3:37:51 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6095
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
I have listened to Veji1 this time. I've raised the subject with Brad and want to hear what he thinks about it. It will be an open disccussion....

but the war doesn't wait


May 26 1943

So the allied landed the 7th US Division (yet no marines around!?!?!?) and a tank regiment at Tulagi. 3 BBs bombed the hell out of it during the night and several bomber squadrons attacked during the day....
My garrison there is composed of second line troops...low morale, no heavy equipment, no HQ...and, above all, no supplies... yet at the very first american attack they held! Obtaining a great 1-2!!!
I know this won't last... but it feels good to know that my guys are able to fight till their death

near Munda a bait TF composed of 2 DDs LRCAPPED by 50 fighters attracted 20 Judys of mine... lost 10 zeros and 15 Judies for no gain....

P-47s are now sweeping an abbandoned Munda... the front is now very close to Boudanville, being Shortland my closest defended base.

A new activity in CENTPAC, with the allies that are bombing Makin....and reconning Ocean Island....

Enemy TFs assembling at Darwin, Townville and Portland Roads....


(in reply to Itdepends)
Post #: 2022
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/11/2013 3:42:11 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6095
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
July is coming soon and July 1943 will be an important month.

on 7/1/1943 we're gonna see the arrival of some very important air frames: KI-44c (badly needed!), KI-84a and Judy mk-3


BB Musashi arrived at Nagasaki and now we're assembling a TF for her.  To look back i think it was a mistake to invest all those HIs for her...she arrives too late to e of any help... probably the Shinano CV could have been a wiser investment... live and learn


(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 2023
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/11/2013 3:46:12 PM   
obvert


Posts: 6828
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online
Before you think she's not worth it, check out the AA numbers in early 44 (1500+). If you still have a KB then, that's a vey good ship to have with the slower CVs. The Shinano only gives 40 more planes and wouldn't get there until 44 anyway.

You're getting the Judy D4Y3 very early! Nice.

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 2024
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/11/2013 3:47:31 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6095
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Before you think she's not worth it, check out the AA numbers in early 44 (1500+). If you still have a KB then, that's a vey good ship to have with the slower CVs. The Shinano only gives 40 more planes and wouldn't get there until 44 anyway.

You're getting the Judy D4Y3 very early! Nice.


Oh, that's cool! Never thought about the AA related with BBs... i still think them as an offensive weapon... dreamer me

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 2025
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/11/2013 6:29:23 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6095
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
So, while we're approaching the most critical time period, the japanese economy is still running. We're having the usual shortage problems of supplies, but, with a lot of efforts, we're managing to keep the levels of late 1942 (2,300,000).
We're now saving a good amount of HI and we've just passed the 1,500,000 step.
Draconian measures are taken to minimize the fuel expenditure for the fleet, but we're still consuming 15,000 fuel daily...which is way too much considering i'm producing barely 22,000 fuel points every day and the HI alone drinks 14,500 fuel points

But there's nothing more i can do at the moment. I'm already stretching the Empire's possibilities to the very limit and that's all i can do.




(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 2026
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/11/2013 8:33:15 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4175
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

Oh, that's cool! Never thought about the AA related with BBs... i still think them as an offensive weapon... dreamer me


Yeah, Churchill made the same mistake.

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 2027
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/11/2013 10:13:32 PM   
goran007

 

Posts: 143
Joined: 9/3/2009
From: croatia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1

I honestly would raise the PT issue at Babar and Saumlaki... Having PTs just cross 200 miles of openwater like that, to just go and park on your islands without local fuel dumps etc just sounds absurd to me...

I would raise it not because Qball is being dishonest or anything, the game engine let's it happen, but because with this mod that already emulates the Jap situation way better than in stock (supply and AS issue, resulting in closed AFs etc..) he doesn't need to use that and it gives him an advantage that is not in the spirit of the game you are playing.

There wouldn't be anything dishonourable about raising the issue at least.

my 2 cents anyway.

quote:

ack with my defences here...there isn't that much i can do. The whole south pacif


Whats the problem with PT boats anyway...
Could they cross 250 miles from Darwin to Saumlaki? OFC they could:

Fuel consumption of these engines was phenomenal; a PT boat carried 3,000 gallons (11,360 liters) of 100 octane avgas. A normal patrol for these boats would last a maximum of 12 hours. The consumption rate for each engine at a cruising speed of 23 knots was about 66 gallons (250 l) per hour (200 gallons [760 l] per hour for all 3 engines). However, at top speed, consumption increased to 166 gallons (628 l) per hour per engine (or 500 gallons [1,890 l] per hour for all 3 engines). Navy acceptance trials for every boat required it be able to demonstrate ability to achieve design speed of 41+ knots. Going at this speed, the 3,000 gallons of fuel would be used in only about 6 hours.

Could they be deadly?
Suragao strait:

On October 25, Abukuma met her fate in the Battle of Surigao Strait, part of the overall campaign of four naval battles collectively referred to as the Battle of Leyte Gulf. In the pre-dawn hours, as Shima's force entered the strait, the flotilla was attacked by a squadron of American PT boats. Lieutenant (jg) Mike Kovar's PT-137 fired a torpedo at a destroyer, but it ran deep and passed beneath the target to strike Abukuma at 3:25 AM in the No. 1 boiler room, killing 37 crewmen.

Although in the Pacific they didn't sink bigger IJN ships that doesn't mean they weren't capable doing so.
During World War II, S-boats sank 101 merchant ships totalling 214,728 tons.[6] In addition, they sank 12 destroyers, 11 minesweepers, eight landing ships, six MTBs, a torpedo boat, a minelayer, one submarine and a number of small merchant craft. They also damaged two cruisers, five destroyers, three landing ships, a repair ship, a naval tug and numerous merchant vessels. Sea mines laid by the S-boats were responsible for the loss of 37 merchant ships totalling 148,535 tons, a destroyer, two minesweepers and four landing ships.
(all taken from wiki)

In archipelago 1944 during the night, one TF composed of Fletchers and one TF of PT's should be able to deal with anything IJN had regardless of size. IJN didn't like to mess with US PT boats either on one hand they were cheap and numerous on other hand only one torpedo could sink any ship. PT's should be 'free kill' only for 100feet planes but for other ships not so. PT boats + night= good chance of lost destroyer (not to mention bigger ships)

< Message edited by goran007 -- 2/11/2013 10:23:24 PM >

(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 2028
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/12/2013 8:22:16 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6095
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
May 26, 43

CAP Traps are killing me!!!

Brad placed a CVE TF 3 hexes south pf Babar, with LRCAP over 2 DDs at Babar itself... several scattered groups of Frances/Betties took off, always escorted...and it ended up with a useless slaughterfest.
Lost 70 planes for no reason. Even if they passes through the heavy CAP, obviously torpedo planes are harmless against 2 nimble DDs... and i'm losing an avg of 50 planes and 20 pilots every day because of these traps

He bombed Taberfane, Munda and Tulagi with several cruisers.... while his air force started to bomb Terapo... he's growing stronger each day and i'm losing the grip on this match... supplies are low everywhere south of Truk and my front line bases in the southern DEI are all badly damaged, out of supplies and with little or no hope of relief. CAP traps are forcing me to keep my anti-naval assets at bay and his 4Es and bombardment TFs are doing the rest of the job. Brad knows how to advance, that's for sure....



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Tulagi at 114,137

Allied Ships
CA Vincennes
CA Quincy
CL St. Louis
DD Benham
DD Dunlap
DD Abbot
DD Fletcher

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

Airbase hits 3
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 15
Port hits 18
Port supply hits 4


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Taberfane at 82,117

Allied Ships
CA Minneapolis
CA Chicago
CL Denver
CL Nashville
CL Java
CL Achilles
DD Worden
DD Craven
DD Walke
DD Chevalier

Japanese ground losses:
573 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 23 disabled
Engineers: 3 destroyed, 10 disabled
Guns lost 4 (1 destroyed, 3 disabled)

Airbase hits 25
Airbase supply hits 7
Runway hits 89
Port hits 28
Port supply hits 5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Munda at 111,134 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
H6K4 Mavis: 3 damaged
G3M3 Nell: 1 damaged

5 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
CA Chester
CA Houston
CA Northampton
CA Indianapolis
CL Columbia
CL Newcastle

Japanese ground losses:
241 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 9 destroyed, 59 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Guns lost 25 (2 destroyed, 23 disabled)
Vehicles lost 19 (2 destroyed, 17 disabled)

Airbase hits 27
Airbase supply hits 6
Runway hits 97
Port hits 37
Port supply hits 3



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Babar at 76,117

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid detected at 48 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 14 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 18
P1Y1 Frances x 9

Allied aircraft
F6F-3 Hellcat x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 7 destroyed
P1Y1 Frances: 4 destroyed, 1 damaged
P1Y1 Frances: 1 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
F6F-3 Hellcat: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
DD Fanning
DD Shaw

Aircraft Attacking:
2 x P1Y1 Frances launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 45cm Type 91 Torp

CAP engaged:
VRF-1F with F6F-3 Hellcat (12 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
12 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 20000
Raid is overhead
VRF-2F with F6F-3 Hellcat (12 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
12 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 20000
Raid is overhead


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Babar at 76,117

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid detected at 64 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 22 minutes

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 9
Ki-43-IIb Oscar x 26

Allied aircraft
F6F-3 Hellcat x 10

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 3 damaged
Ki-43-IIb Oscar: 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F6F-3 Hellcat: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
DD Shaw
DD Fanning




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Babar at 76,117

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 37 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 3
P1Y1 Frances x 3

Allied aircraft
F6F-3 Hellcat x 22

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed
P1Y1 Frances: 2 destroyed

No Allied losses



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Babar at 76,117

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 62 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 21 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 6
A6M3a Zero x 12
G4M1 Betty x 9

Allied aircraft
F6F-3 Hellcat x 18

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 3 destroyed
A6M3a Zero: 5 destroyed
G4M1 Betty: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F6F-3 Hellcat: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
DD Fanning
DD Shaw



...and so on....



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

Ground combat at Tulagi (114,137)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 3771 troops, 62 guns, 44 vehicles, Assault Value = 343

Defending force 4413 troops, 19 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 128

Assaulting units:
7th Infantry/A Division
2/6th Armoured Regiment
7th Infantry/B Division
7th Infantry/C Division

Defending units:
10th Garrison Unit
5th Indpt SNLF Coy /5





What should i do?... Munda has already been abbandoned by my air forces...now he will neutralize Bouganville... and it seems i can do anything against all those bombarment TFs... my DDs would be useless and my bombers can never catch them...or when they do they find themself going against lousy cap traps... it's really difficult to decide how to counter this wise advancing strategy

Well, i guess the only choice i have is to force him to invade, sooner or later, a well defended place...but it's hard cause in the Solomons and in NG there are a lot of empty dot bases and he can simply make a para-drop, followed by waves of PT/DDs to keep me at bay....drop some engineers and voilà: in few turns he gets a level 1 AF with 50 fighters, 200 mines and some 40 PTs.

(in reply to goran007)
Post #: 2029
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/12/2013 8:57:10 AM   
obvert


Posts: 6828
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online
What I had to do was turn off the bombers. Don't leave them for any random CAP trapping possibility. You also then gain the element of surprise back. When will he turn them on? Where are they?

You'll get shots, but your forces can't be in a mess when he comes. If you need to keep bombers back from recon, then fly them in when you want to strike at a big known target. The Netties won't hit LSTs much anyway either, so if he's using small craft to island hop, they won't do any good.

Can you sweep any non-built up bases to get bleeding LR CAP and wear it down? Have you tried expendable midget subs en masse to be a nuisance even if they do little? (at least when his air patrols spot them he has no idea if they're big or little ones). Look behind his front to see if there are any targets undefended for your G3M3 at long range. Maybe try some night attacks (which have worked for some, but I have found a bit frustrating, with lots of strikes and no hits against sea targets, little damage against land and port).

PS - In your game with the supply limits it makes sense to really try to pick your spots. All of those TT cost supply, as do flying those missions and replacing those planes.

Also I just noticed your Netty altitudes. If he's going to CAP trap, fly them low at 1k. The intercept times will be more like 8-12 minutes, so you may get a lot through without the CAP getting there. Especially if he's flying at 20k. He'll adjust of course. But maybe it'll work for a bit.

< Message edited by obvert -- 2/12/2013 9:24:51 AM >


_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 2030
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/12/2013 9:40:14 AM   
veji1

 

Posts: 958
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: goran007

quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1

I honestly would raise the PT issue at Babar and Saumlaki... Having PTs just cross 200 miles of openwater like that, to just go and park on your islands without local fuel dumps etc just sounds absurd to me...

I would raise it not because Qball is being dishonest or anything, the game engine let's it happen, but because with this mod that already emulates the Jap situation way better than in stock (supply and AS issue, resulting in closed AFs etc..) he doesn't need to use that and it gives him an advantage that is not in the spirit of the game you are playing.

There wouldn't be anything dishonourable about raising the issue at least.

my 2 cents anyway.

quote:

ack with my defences here...there isn't that much i can do. The whole south pacif


Whats the problem with PT boats anyway...
Could they cross 250 miles from Darwin to Saumlaki? OFC they could:

Fuel consumption of these engines was phenomenal; a PT boat carried 3,000 gallons (11,360 liters) of 100 octane avgas. A normal patrol for these boats would last a maximum of 12 hours. The consumption rate for each engine at a cruising speed of 23 knots was about 66 gallons (250 l) per hour (200 gallons [760 l] per hour for all 3 engines). However, at top speed, consumption increased to 166 gallons (628 l) per hour per engine (or 500 gallons [1,890 l] per hour for all 3 engines). Navy acceptance trials for every boat required it be able to demonstrate ability to achieve design speed of 41+ knots. Going at this speed, the 3,000 gallons of fuel would be used in only about 6 hours.

Could they be deadly?
Suragao strait:

On October 25, Abukuma met her fate in the Battle of Surigao Strait, part of the overall campaign of four naval battles collectively referred to as the Battle of Leyte Gulf. In the pre-dawn hours, as Shima's force entered the strait, the flotilla was attacked by a squadron of American PT boats. Lieutenant (jg) Mike Kovar's PT-137 fired a torpedo at a destroyer, but it ran deep and passed beneath the target to strike Abukuma at 3:25 AM in the No. 1 boiler room, killing 37 crewmen.

Although in the Pacific they didn't sink bigger IJN ships that doesn't mean they weren't capable doing so.
During World War II, S-boats sank 101 merchant ships totalling 214,728 tons.[6] In addition, they sank 12 destroyers, 11 minesweepers, eight landing ships, six MTBs, a torpedo boat, a minelayer, one submarine and a number of small merchant craft. They also damaged two cruisers, five destroyers, three landing ships, a repair ship, a naval tug and numerous merchant vessels. Sea mines laid by the S-boats were responsible for the loss of 37 merchant ships totalling 148,535 tons, a destroyer, two minesweepers and four landing ships.
(all taken from wiki)

In archipelago 1944 during the night, one TF composed of Fletchers and one TF of PT's should be able to deal with anything IJN had regardless of size. IJN didn't like to mess with US PT boats either on one hand they were cheap and numerous on other hand only one torpedo could sink any ship. PT's should be 'free kill' only for 100feet planes but for other ships not so. PT boats + night= good chance of lost destroyer (not to mention bigger ships)


I get your point but there is a difference between "how far could a PT boat sail straight into the ocean with its fuel supplies" and whether it was practical in times of war to cross 250 miles of sea to be in an archipelago of which you have no control, far away from your supply dumps.

My point is that now that he has a foothold in the SOlomons, I have no problem at all with him flooding the area with PT boats. But in Saumlaki or Babar it just stretches the imagination and uses what I would qualify as a game engine issue.

_____________________________

Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam

(in reply to goran007)
Post #: 2031
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/12/2013 10:58:18 AM   
obvert


Posts: 6828
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1


I get your point but there is a difference between "how far could a PT boat sail straight into the ocean with its fuel supplies" and whether it was practical in times of war to cross 250 miles of sea to be in an archipelago of which you have no control, far away from your supply dumps.

My point is that now that he has a foothold in the SOlomons, I have no problem at all with him flooding the area with PT boats. But in Saumlaki or Babar it just stretches the imagination and uses what I would qualify as a game engine issue.


The interesting part of the info above is that they used avgas, not bunker oil as would any of the ships they were refueling from, so those ships would have been carrying a bunch of avgas on deck into enemy territory. Sounds like fun to strafe!

If the Allies had needed to do this, they most likely would have figured out a way. I doubt it would have been anything like a nightly foray by 40+ boats though. That would have been a logistical nightmare, trying to refuel those in mid-ocean in any weather. Now that we know that Q-Ball was indeed doing this (as Saumlaki is too far according to hex range from Bathurst Island in game), it is good GJ checked it out and there is an agreement to halt that particular method.

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 2032
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/12/2013 12:46:51 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5621
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
As goran007 notes above, I don't have a problem with the PT's being used in the DEI and being re-fueled by other ships.  They had the range and they were designed to work in this area in that manner.  Most CL's had AvGas tanks for FP's and even without those 7 skids of AvGas (9x55 gal per skid) or 15 pallets (4x55 gal per pallet) re-fuels a PT and again, that ain't that much space on a DD.  That they are also a deadly pest is also accurate. 

My biggest issue is that they are NOT as susceptible to strafing as they should be.  Fighter strafing a quite accurate and nimble and even 50cal would punch a lot of holes in a PT.  Yes strafing will get them, but I've never gotten more than 2 PT's per attack phase even when using a full group of high exp piloted A6M's.  36 A6M's catching 6 PT's on open water in daylight should be far more deadly than just 2PT's.  And that's the best I've done ... generally I would only get one.  Just feels low.

Hard to hit with bombs? Yes. Strafing though should be quite deadly.

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 2/12/2013 12:54:39 PM >


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 2033
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/12/2013 2:16:07 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12262
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

As goran007 notes above, I don't have a problem with the PT's being used in the DEI and being re-fueled by other ships.  They had the range and they were designed to work in this area in that manner.  Most CL's had AvGas tanks for FP's and even without those 7 skids of AvGas (9x55 gal per skid) or 15 pallets (4x55 gal per pallet) re-fuels a PT and again, that ain't that much space on a DD.  That they are also a deadly pest is also accurate. 

My biggest issue is that they are NOT as susceptible to strafing as they should be.  Fighter strafing a quite accurate and nimble and even 50cal would punch a lot of holes in a PT.  Yes strafing will get them, but I've never gotten more than 2 PT's per attack phase even when using a full group of high exp piloted A6M's.  36 A6M's catching 6 PT's on open water in daylight should be far more deadly than just 2PT's.  And that's the best I've done ... generally I would only get one.  Just feels low.

Hard to hit with bombs? Yes. Strafing though should be quite deadly.



I've never ever lost a single PT to strafing alone. If hit by a bomb, yes, done, but hit by strafing only, no chance to sink.

_____________________________


(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 2034
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/12/2013 3:09:22 PM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14519
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

As goran007 notes above, I don't have a problem with the PT's being used in the DEI and being re-fueled by other ships.  They had the range and they were designed to work in this area in that manner.  Most CL's had AvGas tanks for FP's and even without those 7 skids of AvGas (9x55 gal per skid) or 15 pallets (4x55 gal per pallet) re-fuels a PT and again, that ain't that much space on a DD.  That they are also a deadly pest is also accurate. 

My biggest issue is that they are NOT as susceptible to strafing as they should be.  Fighter strafing a quite accurate and nimble and even 50cal would punch a lot of holes in a PT.  Yes strafing will get them, but I've never gotten more than 2 PT's per attack phase even when using a full group of high exp piloted A6M's.  36 A6M's catching 6 PT's on open water in daylight should be far more deadly than just 2PT's.  And that's the best I've done ... generally I would only get one.  Just feels low.

Hard to hit with bombs? Yes. Strafing though should be quite deadly.

Hmm, my PT boats seemed to be quite vulnerable to Zeros strafing. Been a while since any such action in my games, though.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 2035
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/12/2013 3:12:23 PM   
obvert


Posts: 6828
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online
Found this. Interesting. Not many lost to strafing in the war either. In fact, just one boat!

PT BOAT LOSSES IN WWII

Out of 531 PTs placed in US Navy service, 69 were lost: 5 - destroyed by enemy surface ship gunfire; 1 - rammed by enemy ship; 1 - rammed enemy ship; 1 - enemy aircraft strafing; 4 - enemy bombings; 2 - kamikaze attacks; 5 - enemy shore batteries; 4 - enemy mines; 1 - damaged by enemy fire then destroyed; 2 - lost in transit, tanker torpedoed by enemy. Total: 26 lost by enemy action.

Additional losses: 18 - grounded in enemy waters and destroyed to prevent capture; 3 - destroyed to prevent capture; 3 - destroyed by US aircraft; 2 - destroyed by Australian aircraft; 2 - destroyed by US ships; 1 - destroyed by enemy shore fire or wild shot from US warship; 5 - grounded/destroyed outside enemy waters or in storms; 6 - fire or explosion in port; 3 - collisions. Total: 43 lost by accidents, friendly fire or sea conditions.

http://www.ptboats.org/09-0-05-facts.html

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 2036
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/12/2013 4:09:02 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 2369
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Found this. Interesting. Not many lost to strafing in the war either. In fact, just one boat!

PT BOAT LOSSES IN WWII

Out of 531 PTs placed in US Navy service, 69 were lost: 5 - destroyed by enemy surface ship gunfire; 1 - rammed by enemy ship; 1 - rammed enemy ship; 1 - enemy aircraft strafing; 4 - enemy bombings; 2 - kamikaze attacks; 5 - enemy shore batteries; 4 - enemy mines; 1 - damaged by enemy fire then destroyed; 2 - lost in transit, tanker torpedoed by enemy. Total: 26 lost by enemy action.

Additional losses: 18 - grounded in enemy waters and destroyed to prevent capture; 3 - destroyed to prevent capture; 3 - destroyed by US aircraft; 2 - destroyed by Australian aircraft; 2 - destroyed by US ships; 1 - destroyed by enemy shore fire or wild shot from US warship; 5 - grounded/destroyed outside enemy waters or in storms; 6 - fire or explosion in port; 3 - collisions. Total: 43 lost by accidents, friendly fire or sea conditions.

http://www.ptboats.org/09-0-05-facts.html

Rammed an enemy ship!
The scenario sounds very Hollywood - "Darn torpedos won't launch! No problem, we'll just propell them into the enemy with our trusty Allison engines ..."

Interesting that allied aircraft and ships were more dangerous to them than the Japanese aircraft. I know the PTs had 20mm Oerlikons later in the war and a few modified themselves to mount a 40mm Bofors [mainly for barge busting] so strafing them would not have been a one-sided attack.

There is a clue in the loss stats - PTs sometimes traveled with tankers. Perhaps that is a house rule for PT missions over 200 NM from base [200 out/200 back/100 on station fuel], a tanker must be used to fuel the PTs at sea. I know cruiser might have been able to refuel from their avgas stocks, but what cruiser captain would slow his ship to a crawl to transfer fuel to a bunch of flammable corks bobbing next to him?

_____________________________

I have not yet begun to fight! OTOH I have not yet begun to flee. Hmmmmm - choices, choices -always with the choices.

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 2037
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/12/2013 11:03:46 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6095
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
Thx guys for your comments.
I have to admit that i was a bit unsure to raise the subject with Brad. However he seems to have agreed that the PTs performances are a bit too high, so we agreed not to refuel them at sea, so that they can still reach their max range distances, but they will be forced to come back to a friendly port to refuel...looks balanced so far.

May 27, 1943

Growing allied activities in the Solomons and in NE Oz, while things at Darwin have a bit slowed down...
two more heavy naval bombings at Tulagi, followed by an heavy air bombing.
Heavy air bombings over Terapo too and over Katha in Burma.

The news of the day is that 80 4Es arrived unescorted over Boela. This time, instead of the usual mily run, they found 61 Georges and 8 Tojos waiting for them! The 4Es arrived at 10,000, while the Georges were at 17,000 feet... 4 Georges were shot down (2 KIA), but report says that nearly 40 liberators and fortresses were shot down! That's a great result!!!

We're garrisoning Hansa Bay (PGN) and Green Island, while more artillery are reaching Bounganville.

Enemy's recon missions over Naru Island and western Sumatra (were we're sending a couple of militia regiments and 3 Tank Rgts)...

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 2038
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/12/2013 11:47:17 PM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3584
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline
I agree with Obvert. He's doing this to degrade your LBA. Turn off the bombers (go to nav search to keep up spotting), or shut down entirely.

Let him think he's ready to go when he isn't. Then turn them back on for the real show.

_____________________________

Follow my latest AAR as I do battle with our resident author Cuttlefish at: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2742735

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 2039
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/12/2013 11:52:51 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6095
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

I agree with Obvert. He's doing this to degrade your LBA. Turn off the bombers (go to nav search to keep up spotting), or shut down entirely.

Let him think he's ready to go when he isn't. Then turn them back on for the real show.



Yup, already ordered that. All my Netties/Frances are set for naval search only. unfortunately i haven't many of them around. some 90 present in the DEI and more 125 in the Solomons... not many air groups arrived lately and had already have to withdraw 2 big groups of Betties in the last months. I had two more Nells groups, divided into tre chutais each, used only for search duties in the Kuriles, CENTPAC, Adamans, Java and Sumatra...

We'll see... i'll do my best anyway

(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 2040
Page:   <<   < prev  66 67 [68] 69 70   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: LOST VICTORIES Page: <<   < prev  66 67 [68] 69 70   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

0.199