Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: Sammy5IsAlive
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) Page: <<   < prev  81 82 [83] 84 85   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 7/3/2021 2:37:03 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 21732
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Helm caught and sunk!




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2461
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 7/3/2021 2:38:29 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 21732
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Phelps caught and sunk!




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2462
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 7/3/2021 2:39:36 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 21732
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
The tide is turning...against us!






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2463
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 7/3/2021 2:44:40 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 21732
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Daylight arrives...






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2464
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 7/3/2021 2:46:46 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 21732
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Air power...no fighter protection...






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2465
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 7/3/2021 2:50:24 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 21732
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Going in fast and low...






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2466
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 7/3/2021 2:55:09 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 21732
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
And the bloody day is over...but, wait, another deliberate attack on the Ankang road...and we hold!


Ground combat at 83,45 (near Nanyang)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 28313 troops, 281 guns, 251 vehicles, Assault Value = 867

Defending force 22556 troops, 120 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 564

Japanese adjusted assault: 413

Allied adjusted defense: 1219

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2

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

Japanese ground losses:
756 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 55 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 11 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 7 disabled
Vehicles lost 21 (2 destroyed, 19 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
354 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 42 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled

Assaulting units:
15th Division
13th Tank Regiment
116th Division
3rd Tank Regiment
5th Tank Regiment
23rd Tank Regiment
10th Tank Regiment
51st Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion
13th Army
11th Field Artillery Regiment

Defending units:
55th Chinese Corps
41st Chinese Corps
77th Chinese Corps




SB recon did a good job at pinpointing IJA troop movement off road in this picture!

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 7/3/2021 3:03:13 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2467
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 7/3/2021 2:57:22 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 21732
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
What a day...don't know how it all turned out yet!

We should still have a strong force rearmed at Maryborough for this next day...





< Message edited by Lowpe -- 7/3/2021 3:01:57 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2468
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 7/3/2021 3:01:19 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 21732
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

There is a way to get the fighters to sweep first . . .


That is true, but when the entire squadron elects not to fly because of a failed roll...

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 2469
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 7/3/2021 3:12:45 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 25755
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

There is a way to get the fighters to sweep first . . .


That is true, but when the entire squadron elects not to fly because of a failed roll...

I have three B-29 aces now. Use them instead...

_____________________________


(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2470
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 7/3/2021 4:39:11 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 12524
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

There is a way to get the fighters to sweep first . . .


That is true, but when the entire squadron elects not to fly because of a failed roll...


If you break them into thirds, then the /A, /B, /C will have lower numbers and be checked first. If they pass, then they tend to have their combats decided first.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2471
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 7/3/2021 5:37:59 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 21732
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

There is a way to get the fighters to sweep first . . .


That is true, but when the entire squadron elects not to fly because of a failed roll...

I have three B-29 aces now. Use them instead...


2nd Lt. Ellard has 2 kills, 8 others have one kill flying beasts.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 2472
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 7/3/2021 5:39:14 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 21732
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

There is a way to get the fighters to sweep first . . .


That is true, but when the entire squadron elects not to fly because of a failed roll...


If you break them into thirds, then the /A, /B, /C will have lower numbers and be checked first. If they pass, then they tend to have their combats decided first.


Won't that increase my stack level...perhaps overloading the facility?

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 2473
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 7/3/2021 5:51:21 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 21732
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Recap:

Haguro, 1Torp, 8 Hits, Hvy F, Hvy D
Nachi: sunk
Furutaka: 4Hits, Hvy F
Myoko: 14 hits, Hvy F, Hvy D
Nagara: 3 Hits
Kiso: 12 Hits, Hvy F, Hvy D
Mikuma: 3 Hits, 1 1000# hit (bounced)
Aoba: 1 hit, 1 1000# hit (penetrated)
Mogami: 3 hits

DD Hyashio sunk
Kagero: on fire
Nasushio, 2 Hits on fire
Mutsuki, 1 hit, on fire
Hagikaze: 2 hits, on fire
Yunagi: 1 hit
Uzuki: 1 500# hit




(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2474
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 7/3/2021 6:38:59 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 25755
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

There is a way to get the fighters to sweep first . . .


That is true, but when the entire squadron elects not to fly because of a failed roll...


If you break them into thirds, then the /A, /B, /C will have lower numbers and be checked first. If they pass, then they tend to have their combats decided first.


Won't that increase my stack level...perhaps overloading the facility?


No. Divided squadrons count as 1.

It's a little more complicated if they go to different bases, but as far as I have seen I've never been penalized for it.

_____________________________


(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2475
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 7/3/2021 11:08:30 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 21732
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
The butchers bill...probably scuttle two more destroyers today.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2476
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 7/3/2021 11:14:57 PM   
JohnDillworth


Posts: 3099
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline
That's a lot of float planes for a single CA, no?

_____________________________

Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2477
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 7/3/2021 11:23:33 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 21732
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
It is very messy here...IJA has close to 2K AV at Rockhampton via the rule of 30.








Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2478
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 7/3/2021 11:46:13 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 21732
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

That's a lot of float planes for a single CA, no?


Yep, maybe as many as three went down...not sure if Kiso carries floatplanes. 1 plane for CL if they have them, 2-3 planes for most Cruisers, although some carry as many as 5 like Tone.

Nachi had 2 according to the combat report.

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 7/3/2021 11:52:01 PM >

(in reply to JohnDillworth)
Post #: 2479
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 7/3/2021 11:47:01 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 17254
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

That's a lot of float planes for a single CA, no?

Typically they come with one Jake and two Petes, but can add another FP. But to me 3 Jakes and 8 Petes = 2 CA and CL.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to JohnDillworth)
Post #: 2480
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 7/3/2021 11:51:21 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 21732
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

That's a lot of float planes for a single CA, no?

Typically they come with one Jake and two Petes, but can add another FP. But to me 3 Jakes and 8 Petes = 2 CA and CL.


I know the Furutaka has only 2, and is worth significantly less than other IJN cruisers.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 2481
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 7/3/2021 11:59:10 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 21732
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
IJN going after the R class battleships at Cochin...






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2482
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 7/4/2021 2:13:05 AM   
T Rav

 

Posts: 367
Joined: 5/29/2004
Status: offline
In the words of a long-dead commander, "Keep Up The Fire." Manchu's...

Go Lowpe!

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2483
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 7/4/2021 2:26:31 AM   
ushakov

 

Posts: 44
Joined: 4/3/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
Typically they come with one Jake and two Petes, but can add another FP. But to me 3 Jakes and 8 Petes = 2 CA and CL.

That would be my guess as well, if I had to make one.

Add to previous engagements, and that's what, 4 IJN CAs (20% of total) in the first 6 months of the war? And all of the more modern classes? That's gotta hurt.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 2484
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 7/4/2021 4:30:54 AM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 12524
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline
I would not scuttle those DDs. Who knows, they might put out the fires. Then they can be used as CAP traps if the enemy decides to bomb the port. Eventually you could get them to Brisbane and then repaired if they can put out the fires. Just take the marshmallows and the hot dogs away from the crews.

It is interesting in that it appears that the second FP unit from the cruisers were not taken off, expanded, then used for training and/or ASW purposes. Although Jakes down low can do some good damage to non-armoured ships.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to ushakov)
Post #: 2485
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 7/4/2021 1:18:55 PM   
JohnDillworth


Posts: 3099
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline
IRL, by late 1942 pretty much all of the U.S. pre-war navy was at the bottom of the Pacific or in dry dock. By the end of 1943 U.S. industry would have replaced all of that and then some. Japan simply can't do that. As long as you do not get sucked into a carrier battle you can continue to go toe to toe and as long as you are trading 1:1 punches you are winning. Pick your fights and steer clear of his carriers when you are picking targets. Taking a bite out of the IJN's CA's has to hurt.

_____________________________

Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 2486
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 7/4/2021 1:23:41 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3255
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline
I am liking your use of the USAAF fighters in the anti-shipping role. Makes me feel justified in training LowNav on my fighter pilots as a matter of course.

They've been pretty nifty for naval point defence and when mixed with the dive bombers it really can stretch early war IJ CAP.

I think I've played Japan too much, as IJ low level attacks tend to get mauled by flak. When it's the Allies attacking at low level, it seems much more effective.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2487
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 7/4/2021 1:28:49 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 21732
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Scuttled one destroyer, sending the other to Brisbane on cruise, (3 hexes, coastal)...hopefully they make it.

Our Brooklyn SAG and Helena SAG are hunting IJN cripples...our heavy cruiser force is joined with the Allied light cruisers to bombard Bundaberg while PT boats patrol the harbor.

Sweeps and full out bombing of Bundaberg before another general assault...some airacobras strafing the port.

Letting the IJN bombard Cochin...working on coordinating the land base air to strike back.

Setting up forward CAT bases on bypassed islands...

SSTs can't load troops at Christmas Island...need a larger port to un-gray out the area. I have the option at Pearl for example. So for now the SSTs will carry supplies to our CAT bases.

Converting four ships to DE...




(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2488
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 7/4/2021 1:34:11 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 21732
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I am liking your use of the USAAF fighters in the anti-shipping role. Makes me feel justified in training LowNav on my fighter pilots as a matter of course.

They've been pretty nifty for naval point defence and when mixed with the dive bombers it really can stretch early war IJ CAP.

I think I've played Japan too much, as IJ low level attacks tend to get mauled by flak. When it's the Allies attacking at low level, it seems much more effective.


It coordinates nicely with huge amount of great flak...almost never fly any CAP over bases.

Got my first 2 P38s in the production pool...almost all P38 groups withdraw in 18 days or so. I am hunting around to find out what group I could upgrade to them...I think I have one group of Mohawks in San Diego that can upgrade to them. But I have to wait for the F version to get bombs on them.


(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 2489
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 7/4/2021 1:35:44 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 21732
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

IRL, by late 1942 pretty much all of the U.S. pre-war navy was at the bottom of the Pacific or in dry dock. By the end of 1943 U.S. industry would have replaced all of that and then some. Japan simply can't do that. As long as you do not get sucked into a carrier battle you can continue to go toe to toe and as long as you are trading 1:1 punches you are winning. Pick your fights and steer clear of his carriers when you are picking targets. Taking a bite out of the IJN's CA's has to hurt.


Trying to pick my battles, use destroyers and some models of light cruisers very hard, watching the weather and moonlight thru 42.

(in reply to JohnDillworth)
Post #: 2490
Page:   <<   < prev  81 82 [83] 84 85   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) Page: <<   < prev  81 82 [83] 84 85   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

0.332