Hagane no Arashi - JuanG (J) vs General Patton (A) - BTS 1.9 AAR

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

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

User avatar
JuanG
Posts: 906
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:12 pm

Hagane no Arashi - JuanG (J) vs General Patton (A) - BTS 1.9 AAR

Post by JuanG »

Welcome.
I will be writing (or trying to write) an AAR covering my second game with General Patton. We will be playing Between the Storms version 1.9. We are using the extended map with stacking limits and the new asian road files.

As mentioned, this is actually our second game, the first was with RA 6.6 and started in April - we ended it in late August (game date was May 13th, 1942) due to a decision to move to newly updated RA versions, of which we chose BTS. For a variety of reasons, including updates to the mod, real life getting in the way, etc. getting started took a little longer than expected. GP suggested we lock the starting date down to December 7th, and so we did.

Image
(Image courtesy of SuluSea)

Between the Storms is a scenario by John 3rd and the rest of the RA team, and is basically a fusion of an alternate treaty universe with the Reluctant Admiral timeline. As its part of the RA v7 series, it also incorporates a lot of the great work by Symon/JWE and the DBB team, which certainly made the turn 1 setup a little different from usual (where is all my aviation support?!). While I do have previous experience with DBB, I have not played BTS even against the AI, so most of what I know about the additions to the allied side are from reading that thread, and poking at the scenario with the editor. I expect this to play like an RA+ with a side order of DBB...

[center]------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

Scenario Description
Between the Storms

ALTNAV 1922-1941 (Scenario 55: Between the Storms)
Between the Storms has been created to reflect a slightly different outcome of the historic Washington and London Naval Conferences: 1922-1937 and the rise of Adm Yamamoto to Naval Minister in the years leading up to Dec 7th. The Mod splices together the Treaty Mod (Scen 45) and Reluctant Admiral (Scen 50) to create a complete ALTNAV History spanning the two decades between the World Wars (Storms).


The Washington Conference
Charles Evans Hughes blueprint for disarmament gets out and the Japanese stonewall a Naval Conference for a full year. The Conference does take place in 1922 and disarmament is agreed upon, however, there are additions allowed due to the added time to get the meeting going. The whole Mutsu Debate is scrapped due to Mutsu actually being ready and deployed at that point. While maintaining the 5-5-3 ratio between Great Britain, the United States, and Japan, there are several new outcomes:

1. The Japanese then argue to keep either a Tosa or a pair of the Amagi Class battlecruisers. The Americans carry the day in arguing for the Lexington-Class battlecruisers being completed. They gain the Ranger and Constellation (while scrapping BB Mississippi to maintain balance), Great Britain gets the option to build a pair of Super-Hoods (while additionally scrapping Royal Sovereign), and Japan completes Amagi-Class Ishitaka.

2. The whole subject of CVs is reworked:
a. Allow two 'experimental' CVs (two Hosho's and two Langley's)
b. Two BC conversions are allowed but further treaty tonnage is added for one more CVL to be built by both Japan and USA. The Americans build the King’s Mountain (proto-Independence Class) and the Japanese back off the failed Ryujo design to build Ryukaku (a proto-CVL as well).

The London Conference
Moving on to the London Conference (1930) and the subject of Cruisers is re-worked:
1. Japan--at all costs--sticks to its goal of 70% for CAs (instead of 60%). This allows for GB and USA to build two more CAs (USA: Burlington and Rome) while Japan gains one.
2. Great Britain--who nearly scrapped the treaty due to the issue of CAs and CLs--stands firm over its argument and forces a larger tonnage for CLs. USA adds USS Anchorage and Dallas.
3. Both Japan and the United States were looking at hybrid Cruiser—CVs and they force Great Britain, following the example set with the Washington BC—CV Conversions, to allow for two hybrids each in the early-30s. USA builds CLV Charlotte and Jacksonville, GB builds CAV Melbourne and Wellington (sold/given to those respective navies), and Japan finishes up with CAV Kushiro and Tokachi.

***It should be noted that to take maximum advantage of the revised Treaty tonnages, Japan converts several of the oldest CLs into fast ML, builds additional Myoko-Class CAs and keeps the Mogami Class as 6” CLs.

As the treaty changes play out, the rise of Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku occurs. In this alternate history, Yamamoto exerted a much greater influence first on the Japan Naval Aircraft Industry, then as Deputy Navy Minister, and finally as Navy Minister itself. Yamamoto chooses, at great risk to his life, to forego command of the Combined Fleet and dedicate himself to preparing Japan for a war he didn't want.

He adds two new slipways for Fleet construction to facilitate a different, final pre-war expansion of the Kaigun. New and expanded Naval Yards, Heavy Industry, and Armaments are added at tremendous cost for the Japanese economy as the Admiral attempts to prepare Japan for a possibly long war.

In so choosing to do this Yamamoto then changes the 4th Circle Building plan replacing the 3rd and 4th Yamato-Class Battleships with improved Shokaku-Class CVs and a pair of Kawachi-Class fast Battlecruisers, four sligthly improved CAs, an accelerated Light Cruiser deployment, and additional destroyers. Quick, reasonably cheap carrier conversions are moved forward seeing all of the pre-war CVs/CVLs deploy by December 7th or at slightly earlier dates in 1942. Though only a few of these new ships are ready on December 7th, these additions shall make the Kaigun a force to be reckoned with well into 1944.

The Japan Naval Air Arm is changed so that everything is staked to the Zero Airframe with a specialization of the Zero into a Land-Based Interceptor as well as CV-Based Fighters. Research and production expansion is achieved by streamlining the air industry (cutting several models) while bringing forward second generation aircraft: Judy, Jill, Rita, etc…by great effort the IJNAF deploys nearly all new aircraft on December 7th.

On the ground Yamamoto reorganizes the SNLF units into a Brigade-Sized offensive force and—knowing it will be a war of attrition—converts many Naval Guard into enhanced units with Coastal Defense artillery (using guns taken from refitted warships) for a stronger defensive unit. Additional small units are added to the IJN’s Troops and support units better reflecting Yamamoto's foresight into base building, defense, and expansion needs. While all these units are small and not in great number they promise to help the Japanese war effort.

The foresight of the Admiral pays off during late-1942 and 1943 as new ships, aircraft, and ground units enter into the Japanese Order-of-Battle, however, the cost is steep. Though expanded and using modern aircraft many Japanese Naval Air units start with their experience lowered to reflect the dilution of the experienced pilots into new units that start in Japan or arrive during 1942-1943.

Supply and fuel reserves start at a much reduced state. The Japanese MUST take the DEI as fast as possible!

Once war begins Yamamoto’s influence upon the wartime Kaigun continues to be felt. Several more Shokaku CVs are ordered as well as another pair of CAs, and the conversion of several CLs into CVLs. First class destroyers are accelerated and emphasis is shifted to the AA Akizuki-Class at the expense of the more balanced Yugumo’s. Manpower is at a premium within the Fleet so Submarines, Escorts, and ASW forces all see a major retooling reflecting the Japanese quality over quantity belief. Yamamoto chooses the immediately useful projects, large APs converting to CVEs, better 2nd-class destroyers, fast transports and coastal defense fleet.

This change in the Japanese is not completely hidden from the Allies and, thus, there are major Allied changes as well. The Allies see continued major changes in their starting locations, new air units, the addition of Training Squadrons on mainland USA to allow for an American pilot training program, enhanced aircraft production numbers, several ground units, a French Squadron at Tahiti, additional DDs for Australia, a CLAA conversion for the Omaha-CL, an additional pair of CVLs, and optional conversion of the Kittyhawk Class AKV, Tangier Class AV, and Cimarron Class AOs into CVEs. The added warships reflect a ‘stopgap’ counter to the increased Japanese strength found at war’s start.

How well can YOU do to use these new tools OR how well can you stop the Japanese Navy in its tracks as the Allies? As war clouds gather on the horizon, the United States makes several important decisions (1) to slightly reinforce the Asiatic Fleet with an additional CA, CL, and 4 modern DDs, (2) Admiral Hart also decides to follow his inner thoughts and begin development of Cebu as an alternate anchorage, and (3) the Scouting Force, commanded by Vc-Adm Wilson is sent south to protect the Philippine reinforcement TFs in the South Pacific.

NOTE: This Mod uses JuanG's off-map aircraft purchase system for the Allied Player be use political points to buy additional air frames when needed/wanted.

Japan deploys its few new ships to protect the Invasion TFs coming from Babeldoap and Cam Rahn Bay as the Kido Butai steams towards its rendezvous with destiny at Pearl Harbor…

Scenario Designers: Stanislav Bartoshevitch (FatR), Michael Benoit (NY59Giants), John R. Cochran, III (John 3rd), Brian Doctor (Gen Patton), Juan Gomez (JuanG), Ben Kloosterman (BK), John (JWE/Symon), EJ (SuluSea) and John Young (Red Lancer)

[center]
------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

The HR and settingss we agreed on with GP are as follows, these are largely the same as in our last game with the only change being auto upgrades and replacements being off this time.
Suggested HRs
GENERAL
-No 4E Naval under 10,000ft.
-Pay PPs to transfer in/out of China, Manchuria, India, etc. for both sides (these can be more specific if you like, but my rule of thumb is - if it doesn't belong there then it has to pay to be there).
-Amphibious landings only at base/dot hexes, not empty ones.
-No strategic bombing into or out of China. The exception to this is allies after 1/44, if the base also has a Base Force (or other equivalent ENG unit) of the corresponding nation (ie. US B-24s can bomb out of China if there is a US BF at that base).

JAPAN SPECIFIC
-No simultaneous carrier strikes on both Pearl and the DEI/Singapore/PI on Turn 1. Not physically possible due to the timing.
-No landings on turn 1 'inside' Allied territory/search area - this means places like Palembang, Mersing, Port Moresby, etc. Historical/default targets and those near them are acceptable.
-Royal Thai Army can only operate in Thailand/Malaysia.
-Only Glen floatplanes on submarines (except I-400, which can also operate Seiran).
-No A7M/N1K/B7A/D4Y on CVEs.

ALLIED SPECIFIC
-On turn 1, allies can only give orders to existing TFs, and may not form new ones.
-On turn 1, allies can only give orders to aircraft/LCUs in China.
-No F4U/SB2C on CVEs (except as replenishment).

In general, despite this being an 'alternate history' scenario, I like to follow a degree of historical plausibility. The following sums that up nicely;
-If a real commander wouldn’t do it, then don’t do it. If you think what you are about to do is gamey, ask yourself if a real commander would do it and let that guide your play.

Suggested Game Settings
REALISM OPTIONS
FOW ON
Advanced weather ON
Allied damage control ON
PDU ON
Historical first turn OFF
Dec 7 surprise ON
Reliable USN torps OFF
Realistic R&D ON
No unit withdrawals OFF
Reinforcements FIXED

GAME OPTIONS
Facilities expand OFF
Auto upgrade ships and airgroups OFF
Air and ground replacements OFF
Turn cycle 1 DAY

I will not be posting daily updates or full reports of everything, as I doubt anyone is interested in reading through all of it - most likely I will be doing a weekly update, with more detailed coverage of key battles and areas of interest. Beyond that I'm also happy to trade thoughts and answer questions about my experiences with BTS and RA, and whatever else comes up.

Ill be putting up some plans for Week 1 in a while. I intend to stick to a mostly historical expansion plan, though the order, priorities and execution may end up changed slightly. Beyond that a few easy targets like Darwin, Noumea, etc. may be contemplated, but I don't expect this to be easy. GP put a very good fight last time and I only expect it to be worse this time around, so I do not want to make the mistake of overextending.
User avatar
DOCUP
Posts: 3088
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:38 pm

RE: Hagane no Arashi - JuanG (J) vs General Patton (A) - BTS 1.9 AAR

Post by DOCUP »

Good luck. Love the screen art.
User avatar
JuanG
Posts: 906
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:12 pm

RE: Hagane no Arashi - JuanG (J) vs General Patton (A) - BTS 1.9 AAR

Post by JuanG »

SuluSea posted it in the BTS thread a while back, and I've had it on the BTS install ever since.

Also, since we're on the topic of art, I will be using chemkid's awesome JATM map art in my game (and subsequently in any screenshots). This stuff can be found here.
Image

December 6th (Planning)
Pearl Harbour
Strike on PH by KB-1 (2 CV + 1 CVL) and KB-2 (2 CV + 1 CVL). Two groups of Vals set to airfield attack, everything else set to Port attack. Zeros set to Escort/Cover, not going to throw my pilots away strafing.

After this, KB will retire westwards towards Wake Island, linking up with the tanker group on the way.

Malaya/Indochina
Image

Moves for the next few days shown above - the plan is to move fast. Last time around I only landed at Mersing on week 2, and probably lost a few weeks to it (along with a few CAs due to inadequate air cover). This time the plan is to 7-8 hexes away from the coast with invasion forces for both Mersing and Singkawang, and move to have them landed on Day 3, depending on how Force Z acts. KB-4 (3 CVL) and a BB SCTF provide cover.

The Kota Bharu invasion proceeds as normal, except that the BB SCTF will detach on Day 2 to join the Mersing group.

Luzon
Standard moves here, landings at Batan Is., Aparri, Vigan and Lingayen on Days 1-4. Cover provided by 1 CA TF, 1 CL TF and 1 TB TF. Air strikes from Formosa on Manila/Clark and Iba on Day 1, then rotating targets with heavy escort.

Mindanao
Image

Three pronged attack here. KB-3 (2 CV + 1 CVL) provide cover and hunt for escaping ships, while a CA SCTF blocks off Leyte/Surigao. The 1st Para Assault Division will drop into Cotabato on Day 1, and further forces will land there on Day 2/3, along with a secondary invasion to the north.

Elsewhere
Hong Kong invasion begins to move.
Guam landings on Day 1, hope to have the invaders reloaded by Day 4 for movement to Truk.
Wake Invasion sets off, to be conducted once KB-1/2 arrive.
Other small invasions underway.
Much shuffling of shipping around Japan/Korea to being sorting convoys.

Also, I am considering 'adopting' a few units (probably a mix of ships/airgroups/LCUs) to follow throughout the AAR (or until they meet an untimely end!) and thus provide a slightly closer look at their involvement, does anyone have any units that might be particularly interesting?
User avatar
JuanG
Posts: 906
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:12 pm

RE: Hagane no Arashi - JuanG (J) vs General Patton (A) - BTS 1.9 AAR

Post by JuanG »

December 7th
Pearl Harbour
And thus it begins...

Morning Air attack on Pearl Harbor , at 180,107

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 117 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 43 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 54
B5N2 Kate x 123
D3A1 Val x 102

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N2 Kate: 12 damaged
B5N2 Kate: 3 destroyed by flak
D3A1 Val: 12 damaged
D3A1 Val: 1 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
PBY-5 Catalina: 113 damaged
PBY-5 Catalina: 2 destroyed on ground
P-40B Warhawk: 18 damaged
P-40B Warhawk: 1 destroyed on ground
B-17D Fortress: 20 damaged
B-18A Bolo: 14 damaged
P-36A Mohawk: 2 damaged
P-36A Mohawk: 1 destroyed on ground
SBD-1 Dauntless: 8 damaged
A-20A Havoc: 16 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 6 damaged
R3D-2: 2 damaged
O-47A: 6 damaged
O-47A: 2 destroyed on ground
F4F-3 Wildcat: 2 damaged
C-33: 2 damaged
SNJ-3 Texan: 2 damaged
OS2U-3 Kingfisher: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
BB Tennessee, Bomb hits 7, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
BB New Mexico, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
BB Nevada, Bomb hits 4, Torpedo hits 2, on fire
BB Oklahoma, Torpedo hits 2
BB Arizona, Bomb hits 8, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
CL Anchorage, Torpedo hits 1
CA Minneapolis, Torpedo hits 1
DD Aylwin, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
BB Idaho, Bomb hits 3, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
CA San Francisco, Bomb hits 1
CL Helena, Torpedo hits 1
CL St. Louis, Torpedo hits 1
DD Allen, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage
BB California, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
DD Worden, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
AV Tangier, Bomb hits 1
DD Downes, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Allied ground losses:
44 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Airbase hits 11
Runway hits 40
Port hits 14
Port fuel hits 2
Port supply hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
2 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
27 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 10000 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
6 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
27 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 10000 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
1 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
City Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
21 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 45cm Type 91 Torp
1 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
24 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 45cm Type 91 Torp
15 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 10000 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
6 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 45cm Type 91 Torp
14 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
11 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
10 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
11 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
12 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
17 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
5 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
7 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
4 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
City Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb

Magazine explodes on BB California
Magazine explodes on DD Worden


I'm very pleased with this, last time around I don't think I sunk or even seriously damaged anything, so seeing California explode after a single bomb hit was certainly a surprise. Overall I except New Mexico and/or Arizona to also be at risk, the rest are likely just damaged to varying degrees.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17442
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Hagane no Arashi - JuanG (J) vs General Patton (A) - BTS 1.9 AAR

Post by John 3rd »

BANZAI! Looks like a great start to the game with your PH Attack.

Glad you guys got this going.

The new map is AWESOME isn't it??!! I loaded it and am using it too...




Am looking forward to seeing what your noble opponent shall do. What do you know of his play style? Any tendencies from your first game?
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
DOCUP
Posts: 3088
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:38 pm

RE: Hagane no Arashi - JuanG (J) vs General Patton (A) - BTS 1.9 AAR

Post by DOCUP »

Nice attack. As John said good start. What you didn't sink will clog up his repair yards for awhile.
User avatar
koniu
Posts: 2763
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 4:19 pm
Location: Konin, Poland, European Union

RE: Hagane no Arashi - JuanG (J) vs General Patton (A) - BTS 1.9 AAR

Post by koniu »

Really good attack.
Probably 5 BB sunk or critically damaged.
Two more with at lest 2xTT hit.
Even if they survive You will not see them in next 18+ months
BB California, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
Unlucky ship. I hope it was at lest 800kg not 250kg bomb from Val.
"Only the Dead Have Seen the End of War"
User avatar
JuanG
Posts: 906
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:12 pm

RE: Hagane no Arashi - JuanG (J) vs General Patton (A) - BTS 1.9 AAR

Post by JuanG »

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Am looking forward to seeing what your noble opponent shall do. What do you know of his play style? Any tendencies from your first game?
The few things I picked up;
-Not afraid to use his CVs early on, when he thinks he can get away with it. Last game saw a 'Coral Sea' around PM in mid-January, with Shokaku and Zuikaku barely making it out alive and stuck in repair yards for 5 months. The only reason the battle came out in my favour was the last minute presence of a second KB element of Hiryu/Soryu who mopped up the 2 US CVs. 3 months later he tried to strike at an invasion force in the Aleutians with what I presume were his 3-4 surviving CVs, but the strike got caught mostly unescorted by LRCAP over the landing forces from my carrier group. I never got a strike at him, and he didn't stick around. This means that in BTS with the abundance of little carriers, I need to be extra careful to make sure everything is covered.
-Prefers to concentrate force into a few 'keystone' bases for defence - that battle for PM lasted for 2 weeks before (surface forces) and 2 months after (ground invasion, in 3 phases) the carrier battle mentioned above. In retrospect I should have considered just bypassing and landed on Australia or something to distract him, but instead tied down first 2 and then 5 division equivalents in PM, most of which were in a sad state after it finally fell. I nearly made the same mistake in the Aleutians, though thankfully brought along a second landing force as 'insurance'. Turned out to be barely enough. Same patterns also repeated itself to a lesser degree in other places. This time I will look at alternatives if recon says there are anything over a few thousand troops in a location, and hope to move fast enough to keep him on his toes.
-Willing to abandon untenable/unattractive positions - there was no real battle for Burma in the last game, the Japanese just walked in and took it. While this is a good thing (in a way), I would rather crush the Commonwealth forces rather than have to face them and the Indians at the same time. Not much I can do about this, but if it happens again I will be quicker to shift forces elsewhere.

ORIGINAL: koniu
Really good attack.
Probably 5 BB sunk or critically damaged.
Two more with at lest 2xTT hit.
Even if they survive You will not see them in next 18+ months
While I hope you are right, I have very bad track record with PH strikes, especially with DBB - usually I get no sinkings and maybe 1-2 serious damages at most. I actually very seriously contemplated just taking both KB groups to wipe out the subs at Manila, but decided to gamble on PH again. This time it seems to actually have worked.

ORIGINAL: koniu
BB California, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
Unlucky ship. I hope it was at lest 800kg not 250kg bomb from Val.
Yep, that was an 800kg.
User avatar
Bif1961
Posts: 2014
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:52 pm
Location: Phenix City, Alabama

RE: Hagane no Arashi - JuanG (J) vs General Patton (A) - BTS 1.9 AAR

Post by Bif1961 »

36% of your torpedos were hits (24 hits from 66 torpedos), and no more than 18% of your bombs (28 hits from 156 airframes carrying bombs). That is very good percentage of torpedos hits and below average bombing given static targets. That accounts for your very good results as the deadlier and harder to repair weapons did the majority of damage. Given your strike was about 50 planes lighter than historical. [;)]
User avatar
Bif1961
Posts: 2014
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:52 pm
Location: Phenix City, Alabama

RE: Hagane no Arashi - JuanG (J) vs General Patton (A) - BTS 1.9 AAR

Post by Bif1961 »

Of course 28 hits on the ships doesnt account for all the other bombs that hit airfields, city and port facilites. However, 36% torpedo accuraccy is very high. If you take into account the number of divebombers assigned to airfields, city and port damage then it leaves us with a possible 78 divebombers hitting ships 28 times for 35% accuracy. Look forward too seeing how this develops given the new toys on both sides.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17442
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Hagane no Arashi - JuanG (J) vs General Patton (A) - BTS 1.9 AAR

Post by John 3rd »

I concur that the additions (4 Hybrids) will probably make him more aggressive and willing to take risks. Do be careful!
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
JuanG
Posts: 906
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:12 pm

RE: Hagane no Arashi - JuanG (J) vs General Patton (A) - BTS 1.9 AAR

Post by JuanG »

Two of the Val groups were set to airfield attack, so I would estimate about 100-110 Val/Kate with bombs went for the ships/port facilities. The hit rates are still really good, especially considering that only 2 big Kate groups flew with torpedoes.

GP is working on Turn 2 at the moment, so while I wait for that Ill be putting up the other interesting events on Turn 1, plus some more planning stuff, mostly from a strategic overall perspective.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17442
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Hagane no Arashi - JuanG (J) vs General Patton (A) - BTS 1.9 AAR

Post by John 3rd »

Juan: BTS Update 2.0 just out. Check the thread for details.
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
JuanG
Posts: 906
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:12 pm

RE: Hagane no Arashi - JuanG (J) vs General Patton (A) - BTS 1.9 AAR

Post by JuanG »

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Juan: BTS Update 2.0 just out. Check the thread for details.

Thanks John. Just got Day 2 back from GP (that was fast), so I will be updating our game which is actually running a modified v1.8 with the 1.9 and 2.0 changes. I think the only thing I can't correct are the recon groups for the Japanese CV's, but oh well.
User avatar
JuanG
Posts: 906
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:12 pm

RE: Hagane no Arashi - JuanG (J) vs General Patton (A) - BTS 1.9 AAR

Post by JuanG »

December 7th-8th
Malaya/Indochina
Air strikes on Kota Bharu, Alor Star and Georgetown catch some aircraft on the ground, more killed in sweeps on Dec 8th. IJA bombers switch to ground attack to disrupt troops trying to rail down south.
Sweep on Singapore by A6Ms from Soc Trang sees 7 Buffalo shot down for no losses, group switches to LRCAP of Mersing.
Landings at Kota Bharu, Patani and Singora on the 7th.

Southern invasion force splits on the 7th and heads for both Mersing and Singkawang, due to no sign of Force Z. BB SCTF cover both landings just to be sure, and KB-4 takes up position to the east of Mersing. Several allied air strikes over both days thwarted by CAP. Landings at Mersing begin on 8th, Singkawang due on the 9th. Landings will be followed at Mersing by some 15000 supplies, and at Singkawang by 5000 supplies and an Air HQ from Saigon.

Philippines - Luzon
Air strikes on Manila fail to sink any SS on the 7th, strikes on Clark and Iba catch a dozen aircraft on the group and score 50+ hits on each airfield. On Dec 8th all strikes are focused on Clark, but do not fly due to weather.
SCTF of 4 TB catches and sinks an AKL off Aparri.
Allied SCTF of 2 DD bumps into CL Natori and 6 DD covering convoys to Vigan, and engages in 2 battles. 1 allied DD is set aflame with no damage to the IJN.

Landings begin at Aparri on Dec 7th and Batan Is. on the 8th. Landing at Vigan and Lingayen due on the 9th.

Philippines - Mindanao
KB-3 lashes out at an allied SCTF twice on the 7th;
Allied Ships
CA Houston, Bomb hits 1
CL Boise, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 2, on fire
CL Dallas, Bomb hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
CA Chicago, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Trippe
DD Mayrant
Allied Ships
CA Chicago, Bomb hits 8, on fire, heavy damage
CL Dallas, Torpedo hits 5, and is sunk
DD Mayrant, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CA Houston
CL Boise, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
DD Paulding
DD Pillsbury
DD Trippe
In addition, several smaller strikes go out against a range of targets on both days. No sign of the CA/CL TF on Dec 8th.

Paratroopers capture Cotabato successfully, follow up landings at Butuan and reinforcements for Cotabato due on the 9th. Landings also planned for Manado on the 9th. Mini KB (3xCVE) enroute from Marianas. Invasion for Ambon begins to assemble, 2 CA + 2 DD detached to cover it.

South Pacific
2 AMC's headed back to Truk bump into some allied transports. The aftermath makes me reconsider my stance of 'AMCs are worthless except as transports'.
Image

December 7th-8th
Pearl Harbour
After the strike on PH, KB-1 and KB-2 sweep southwest, with a plan to then move northwest on the 9th and then set course for Wake Island. The tanker TF moves directly west to join them after the sweep south.

On December 8th, there is a change of plans - typically I order my subs around PH to scatter and cover the area between the West Coast and PH very densely, however this time I only placed 4 there, with another 6 covering an arc from the west to the south of Hawaii. The remaining subs were ordered back to Truk/Kwajalein for other duties. On the 8th, one of these retiring subs gets lucky to the SE of Johnston Island;
Image
Japanese Ships
SS I-15

Allied Ships
CV Lexington, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CA Astoria
DD Drayton
DD Dunlap
DD Balch
DD Porter
DD Flusser
DD Perkins

SS I-15 launches 6 torpedoes at CV Lexington
DD Balch fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Porter fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Flusser fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Perkins fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub

I-17 (also enroute back home) gets a second go at this TF, but Lexington is no longer present - was it sunk? Unlikely, given only 2 hits, so it may just be detached. KB is ordered south to investigate.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17442
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Hagane no Arashi - JuanG (J) vs General Patton (A) - BTS 1.9 AAR

Post by John 3rd »

TWO TTs on Lexington: MERRY CHRISTMAS! Go and GET her. BANZAI!

Nice work on hitting that dangerous American CA--CL TF. Adding another CA and modern CL (plus the four modern DDs) can make Asiatic Fleet a bit more formidable. Looks like you have cut them off at the knees on the SECOND day. Nice work.
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17442
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Hagane no Arashi - JuanG (J) vs General Patton (A) - BTS 1.9 AAR

Post by John 3rd »

Have I missed it or does your opponent plan to not have an AAR?
Image

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

RE: Hagane no Arashi - JuanG (J) vs General Patton (A) - BTS 1.9 AAR

Post by topeverest »

Lex hit is a huge bonus. Why not hit PH again?
Andy M
User avatar
JuanG
Posts: 906
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:12 pm

RE: Hagane no Arashi - JuanG (J) vs General Patton (A) - BTS 1.9 AAR

Post by JuanG »

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
TWO TTs on Lexington: MERRY CHRISTMAS! Go and GET her. BANZAI!

Nice work on hitting that dangerous American CA--CL TF. Adding another CA and modern CL (plus the four modern DDs) can make Asiatic Fleet a bit more formidable. Looks like you have cut them off at the knees on the SECOND day. Nice work.
Both of these were very welcome surprises.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Have I missed it or does your opponent plan to not have an AAR?
I don't think so - though to be honest I only asked if GP would be alright with me writing one, I did not ask if he was going to do his own.

ORIGINAL: topeverest
Lex hit is a huge bonus. Why not hit PH again?
Variety of reasons, mainly risk/reward. I lost around 10 Kate and 6 Val to AA on the first day, and the airfields are definitely operational since only 2 Val groups hit them. That means not only will the AA be worse, but I would have to contend with whatever CAP there was and the risk of it leaking through my escort.
User avatar
DOCUP
Posts: 3088
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:38 pm

RE: Hagane no Arashi - JuanG (J) vs General Patton (A) - BTS 1.9 AAR

Post by DOCUP »

As an AFB, I hate to admit good job with the Asiatic fleet and the Lex. Will be watching you from the shadows.[:)]
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”