PzB vs Wobbly - Clash of Steel

Post descriptions of your brilliant successes and unfortunate demises.

Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

User avatar
PzB74
Posts: 5069
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2000 8:00 am
Location: No(r)way

RE: Enemy carriers intercepted by destroyers!

Post by PzB74 »

I agree with most of the reasoning...Andy will most likely move against Northern Borneo,
Java and Sumatra. A longer jump would be foolish and extremely unrealistic. His supply lines are
long and treacherous as it is and only convoys escorted by several surface combatants and carriers
are safe north of New Guinea.

In all I have managed to scrounged ca 4 div worth of troops for Malay and Singapore.
Why not move the CD unit to Johore Baru [;)] Also moving a tank regiment to Singapore.

A good division will reinforce Saigon and all the important bases will be protected.
Same with Hue and Taan: moving 2 divs to the latter.

I wish to create a barrier between Palembang and Singakwang.
Forts, troops, mines, subs, ac, surface forces etc. Our sub laid mines are claiming more and more victims
that have to sail thousands of miles to the nearest friendly repair yard.

Despite of all these efforts I'm still going to STRENGTHEN Formosa and the Okinawas.
The war is only going to be tougher for Andy, the more he push the more resistance there will be [:-]
Image

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Fishbed
Posts: 1827
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:52 am
Location: Henderson Field, Guadalcanal

RE: Enemy carriers intercepted by destroyers!

Post by Fishbed »

Nice one PzB, too bad Richelieu had to be the one to eat the fish, but well anyway, that's what happens when you pick up the wrong side ;)
 
btw so many escort and capital ships in a single TF should recieve some penalties, or if they do not be regulated by a houserule. You just can't expect a normal admiral to handle 50+ mixed real warships, just take a look at what happened to Allied commanders at Savo, or Kurita at San Bernardino with limited units - it was common to see units misunderstanding orders, leading such a formation in combat action (AT NIGHT!) would have been total suicide....
User avatar
pauk
Posts: 4156
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Zagreb,Croatia

RE: Enemy carriers intercepted by destroyers!

Post by pauk »

maximum size per combat TF is 25 IIRC... i guess he put all those ships in escort TF due to logistical nightmares!

I could be wrong of course...

PzB I'm glad to see you have enough troops for reinforcing Malaya and Inner Citadele. Should be a tough nut to crack!
Image
User avatar
PzB74
Posts: 5069
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2000 8:00 am
Location: No(r)way

RE: Enemy carriers intercepted by destroyers!

Post by PzB74 »

The Allied formation was surprised...and didn't fight a good battle at all.
Wish I didn't have divided the TF and sent all my ships to the same hex. Still, not a bad result!

Andy doesn't care overly much about keeping things historical. Everything is a means to an end, and he wants to win.
That brings us bot advantages and disadvantages: like this mega fleet that fought like a turtle [;)]
Image

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
User avatar
PzB74
Posts: 5069
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2000 8:00 am
Location: No(r)way

RE: Enemy carriers intercepted by destroyers!

Post by PzB74 »

Yes, most likely an escort TF: didn't launch many carrier ac against my ships either. Probably
a mega Uber CAP. Tomorrow we throw the Kamis in their head [:D]

We never run out of brave soldiers that can defend the Empire Pauk [;)]

Image

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Speedysteve
Posts: 15974
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Reading, England

RE: Enemy carriers intercepted by destroyers!

Post by Speedysteve »

Has to be an escort TF IMO John due to comabt TF size limitations.
WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester
User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: Enemy carriers intercepted by destroyers!

Post by castor troy »

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Has to be an escort TF IMO John due to comabt TF size limitations.


And that´s the reason why the performance of the Allied TF was so bat IMO.
User avatar
PzB74
Posts: 5069
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2000 8:00 am
Location: No(r)way

RE: Enemy carriers intercepted by destroyers!

Post by PzB74 »

Andy was NOT expecting visitors from that direction...my cruisers were just
hit on the other side of Borneo and he did not know that I 'smuggled' more ships through
the Makassar Strait during his invasion of Balikpapan.


Image

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5838
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Enemy carriers intercepted by destroyers!

Post by Nemo121 »

Our sub laid mines are claiming more and more victims that have to sail thousands of miles to the nearest friendly repair yard. 
 
NOT if he takes Singapore... As to Singapore being a risky move etc... Well, great rewards demand great risks and if you look at Andy's recent moves he has shown a willingness to run risks that even I think are foolhardy and I'm happy to conduct completely unescorted landings in the face of CD units and just accept the losses as the price to be paid.  So, think on what you yourself say above.... It is a pity you can't just issue an order to prepare the repair yards for destruction really.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

RE: Enemy carriers intercepted by destroyers!

Post by mogami »

Hi, I wonder how difficult it would be to add a destroy order that works in reverse of repair/build order?
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
User avatar
PzB74
Posts: 5069
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2000 8:00 am
Location: No(r)way

RE: Enemy carriers intercepted by destroyers!

Post by PzB74 »

I know the risk concerning Singapore Nemo, but I think Andy has to jump via Java/Northern Borneo.
This should give us a couple of months at least. Jumping straight to Singapore is suicide, even Andy won't do that.
It would be too surrealistic, just like sailing into the Adriatic to march on Berlin from Venice... [8|]

Yes, this late war game certainly highlightes the need for a demolition order Mog.
While oil fields can't be destroyed completely, it's easy to destroy the well heads and storage tanks. Would take
months to build new in the middle of a world war... Same with mines etc.

The Japs had years to prepare for demolition - unlike the Allies that were taken by surprise in early 42.

I suggest that Engineer units should be given an extra option: demolition of oil/resources/yards/factories etc.
They should be vastly more effective than any other units.
Image

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Knavey
Posts: 2565
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 4:25 am
Location: Valrico, Florida

RE: Enemy carriers intercepted by destroyers!

Post by Knavey »

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I wonder how difficult it would be to add a destroy order that works in reverse of repair/build order?

Now THAT would be fantastic, as well as adding a do not rebuild the airfield option.
x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"
User avatar
PzB74
Posts: 5069
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2000 8:00 am
Location: No(r)way

RE: Enemy carriers intercepted by destroyers!

Post by PzB74 »

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 07/16/44

Air Combat

Tried to hit retreating enemy ships with a mix of level bombers
and kamis. Only Kamis got through... In the future I will continue to
mix them in much larger numbers. More experienced kamis will be converted as well.

I will NOT feel bad when Billy Bob finally wanders into a swarm of level bombers and
kamis. Had SO enough of seeing 99% of fighters and bombers at all altitudes being
shot down without releasing as much as a spud!

The reason I do carry on with some strikes is that I wish to exploit any openings in
the CAP or hit a vulnerable stray ship/TF.

Day Air attack on TF at 28,68

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 3
F4U-1D Corsair x 10
SB2C Helldiver x 10
P-47D Thunderbolt x 9

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships - the crippled Uranami sinks...
DD Uranami, Bomb hits 4, on fire, heavy damage *sinks*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 41,70

Japanese aircraft
G4M2 Betty x 20
Ki-48 Lily x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-48 Lily: 3 destroyed

Allied Ships - the fuel convoy has now finally struggled into port.
TK Deroche, Torpedo hits 1, Kamikaze hits 2, on fire, heavy damage *sinks*
TK Victor H Kelly, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Darwin at 36,84

Japanese aircraft
B7A Grace x 16
Ki-21 Sally x 6

Allied aircraft
FM-2 Wildcat x 12
Boomerang II x 5
Spitfire VIII x 8
P-40N Warhawk x 68
P-38J Lightning x 57

Japanese aircraft losses
B7A Grace: 16 destroyed
Ki-21 Sally: 6 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Boomerang II: 1 damaged
Spitfire VIII: 1 damaged
P-40N Warhawk: 1 damaged
P-38J Lightning: 4 damaged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 46,76

Japanese aircraft
P1Y Frances x 11

Japanese aircraft losses
P1Y Frances: 7 damaged

Allied Ships
AK Antoine Saugrain
AK Benjamin Waterhouse
AK Thomas J. Walsh, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage - this bugger carried FUEL and troops!!

Allied ground losses:
37 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 30,71

Japanese aircraft
D4Y Judy x 24

Allied aircraft
FM-2 Wildcat x 45
F6F Hellcat x 93
F4U-1D Corsair x 13

Japanese aircraft losses
D4Y Judy: 20 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F6F Hellcat: 1 damaged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 30,71

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zeke x 39
B6N Jill x 12
B7A Grace x 10
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 19

Allied aircraft
FM-2 Wildcat x 45
F6F Hellcat x 87
F4U-1D Corsair x 13

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zeke: 39 destroyed
B6N Jill: 12 destroyed
B7A Grace: 10 destroyed
Ki-43-IIa Oscar: 15 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F6F Hellcat: 3 damaged
F4U-1D Corsair: 1 damaged

Allied Ships - non of the 22 Kami Zekes scores a hit. Green pilots...
CL Mobile
CL Australia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Noemfoor at 45,76

Japanese aircraft
B7A Grace x 9
P1Y Frances x 12

Allied aircraft
Beaufighter Mk 21 x 9
P-40N Warhawk x 14

Japanese aircraft losses
B7A Grace: 9 destroyed
P1Y Frances: 2 destroyed, 3 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Beaufighter Mk 21: 1 damaged
P-40N Warhawk: 1 damaged

Allied Ships
AK Australian Victory

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x P1Y Frances launching torpedoes at 200 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground Combat

After flying in supplies and some reinforcement troops Noemfoor again repulses
the enemy [:D] I can hear Andy swear all the way over here! [8D]

Ground combat at Noemfoor

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 31346 troops, 146 guns, 70 vehicles, Assault Value = 490

Defending force 22286 troops, 63 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 447

Allied max assault: 836 - adjusted assault: 251

Japanese max defense: 312 - adjusted defense: 538

Allied assault odds: 0 to 1 (fort level 6)

Japanese ground losses:
300 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

Allied ground losses:
976 casualties reported
Guns lost 8
Vehicles lost 7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Food for the fanboys... [:D]

Mitsubishi J8M Shusui

We should be allowed to produce these from 09.45 - right [;)]

Image
Attachments
shusui10.jpg
shusui10.jpg (17 KiB) Viewed 169 times
Image

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
User avatar
VSWG
Posts: 3217
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:04 pm
Location: Germany

RE: Enemy carriers intercepted by destroyers!

Post by VSWG »

ORIGINAL: PzB

AK Thomas J. Walsh, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage - this bugger carried FUEL and troops!!
Whoah! Is he trying to turn his soldiers into human torches?!

Anyway, either he's a bit careless when loading his convoys, or he's desperately in need of APs and TKs.
Image
User avatar
Rob Brennan UK
Posts: 3685
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 8:36 pm
Location: London UK

RE: Enemy carriers intercepted by destroyers!

Post by Rob Brennan UK »

LOL japanese Komet .. given the germans utterly failed using them effictively dur to some severe design problems i doubt japan could do better .. that in mind though i bet they could happily ram a B29[;)]assuming the pilot kept his wits in the 12 minutes of flight time ( iirc)

or try one of these ?



Image
Attachments
movie_sm.jpg
movie_sm.jpg (7.17 KiB) Viewed 170 times
sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)
soeren01
Posts: 392
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 10:04 am
Location: Bayern

RE: Enemy carriers intercepted by destroyers!

Post by soeren01 »

[quote]ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

LOL japanese Komet .. given the germans utterly failed using them effictively dur to some severe design problems i doubt japan could do better .. that in mind though i bet they could happily ram a B29[;)]assuming the pilot kept his wits in the 12 minutes of flight time ( iirc)


Should be very effective as kami, with the kind of fuel it uses.
soeren01, formerly known as Soeren
CoG FoF
PacWar WIR BoB BTR UV WITP WITE WITW
User avatar
Monter_Trismegistos
Posts: 1359
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 8:58 pm
Location: Gdansk

RE: Enemy carriers intercepted by destroyers!

Post by Monter_Trismegistos »

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK
or try one of these ?
Image

What's that? Is it some kind of early Corsair prototype? [:D]
Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą
Speedysteve
Posts: 15974
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Reading, England

RE: Enemy carriers intercepted by destroyers!

Post by Speedysteve »

[:D]
WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester
Distiller
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:51 pm

RE: Enemy carriers intercepted by destroyers!

Post by Distiller »

A J8M Shusui? cute, gotta produce them in numbers, though. btw, your wish has recently been granted http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1188577  ..dunno if it's any consolation to you as i doubt anyone is taking his chances with an obscure mod in a longwinded pbem game (or just use fragments of it)

/shameless self plug


on topic: i'd LOVE to see torp salvoes being able to hit multiple targets, imagine Oi, Kitakami, and a few DDs launching 100+ Long Lances at that 54 ship TF in a single salvo ! a dream come true.
User avatar
PzB74
Posts: 5069
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2000 8:00 am
Location: No(r)way

RE: Enemy carriers intercepted by destroyers!

Post by PzB74 »

That's kewl Distiller [8D]
Playing Japan in 1945 is not an envious business, so I think Matrix should 'sweeten the pot'
a bit by adding more desperate last ditch ac. The US didn't need to rush experimental designs
into combat, desperation drove both the Germans and the Japs to do so.

We continue to hack away at the enemy's supply train: transports are hit daily
and without the British transports Andy may actually run low one day.

Now I'm going to uninstall the latest MS 'updates'
Can't say how much I regret installing them. WitP crashed 4 times today and even
my laptop at work is crashing. Geezus, should be illegal to distribute such BS!

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 07/17/44

Air Combat

Tried a small 'surprise attack' on Rabaul harbour...unfortunately a CAP
was in place!

Day Air attack on Rabaul , at 61,88

Japanese aircraft
G4M2 Betty x 18
P1Y Frances x 9

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 3
FM-2 Wildcat x 16
F6F Hellcat x 8
F4U-1 Corsair x 11
F6F-5N Hellcat x 19
P-38J Lightning x 33

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M2 Betty: 11 destroyed
P1Y Frances: 7 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
FM-2 Wildcat: 1 damaged
F6F Hellcat: 1 damaged
F4U-1 Corsair: 2 damaged
P-38J Lightning: 7 damaged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 45,74

Japanese aircraft
B7A Grace x 5
P1Y Frances x 12

Japanese aircraft losses
B7A Grace: 2 damaged
P1Y Frances: 8 damaged

Allied Ships
AK Cetus, Torpedo hits 2, on fire
AK Oregonian
AK Sidney H. Short
AK Henry L. Gantt, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage

Allied ground losses:
159 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Noemfoor at 45,76

Japanese aircraft
G4M2 Betty x 4

Allied aircraft
Beaufighter Mk 21 x 11
P-40N Warhawk x 4

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M2 Betty: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied Ships
DE Lamons

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x G4M2 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 41,70

Japanese aircraft
G4M2 Betty x 11
Ki-48 Lily x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M2 Betty: 1 destroyed
Ki-48 Lily: 3 destroyed

Allied Ships
TK J.A. Moffett, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 53,74

Allied aircraft
Kittyhawk III x 3
PB4Y Liberator x 6

Allied aircraft losses
PB4Y Liberator: 1 destroyed, 4 damaged

Japanese Ships
CL Yahagi, Bomb hits 1

Aircraft Attacking: - should be almost impossible to hit a 35 knot cruiser with a 4E bomber
from 10k feet....

3 x PB4Y Liberator bombing at 10000 feet
2 x PB4Y Liberator bombing at 10000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More fuel ladden troop carrying cargo ships [;)]
Day Air attack on TF at 45,74

Japanese aircraft
B7A Grace x 5
P1Y Frances x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
P1Y Frances: 6 damaged

Allied Ships
AK Antoine Saugrain
AK Abigail S. Duniway, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
AK Benjamin Waterhouse
AK John Sherman, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
AK Sidney H. Short

Allied ground losses:
57 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Image

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”