BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

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

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

RE: The Empire Strikes Back!

Post by PzB74 »

Ok that settles it; we sink the Mississippi, the AKV a transport and an escort.
The Valiant was also reported sunk; time to conclude this business.

We have the first 36 ac Frank unit in service, upgraded an elite formation first.
The Katsuragi is enroute to meet up with the KB.
A Zero unit that upgrades to the George without being restricted also arrived [&o]

In RL this has been a crap week with a close friend passing away, getting sick and in general not having the best
of weeks. Having the best of times in AE kinda helps lift the spirit a bit...unfortunately at the sacrifice of someone elses good spirits [8|]


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Nov 10, 43

Sub Attacks

Sub attack near Perth at 47,147

Japanese Ships
SS I-27, hits 6

Allied Ships
xAP Kepong, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
DE Isis
DE Fortune
DE Encounter
AS Colombia
LSI(L) Empire Battleaxe
AK Charlevoix
AK Caledonia
AK Indus
TK British Hope
TK Norfold
LST-479
LST-335
xAP Kajang
xAP Speelman
xAP Rooseboom
xAP Sin Kheng Seng
xAP Cap St Jacques
xAK John Burke
xAK Frederick J. Turner
xAK Francisco Coronado
xAK Christy Mathewson
xAK Archbishop Lamy
xAK Portmar
xAK Cape Elizabeth
xAK Sidney Hauptmann
DD Racehorse
DD Vendetta
DD Endicott

SS I-27 launches 6 torpedoes at xAP Kepong
DD Racehorse fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Vendetta fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Endicott fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Vendetta attacking submerged sub ....
DD Vendetta fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Vendetta fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Vendetta fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Vendetta fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub

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

Air Combat

Again, taking out ground assault in Burma.

Morning Air attack on TF, near Busselton at 17,165
Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 31 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 30
A6M5b Zero x 11
B6N2 Jill x 10

Japanese aircraft losses
B6N2 Jill: 2 damaged

Allied Ships
BB Mississippi, Torpedo hits 2, heavy damage
xAK Adabelle Lykes, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk

Aircraft Attacking:
10 x B6N2 Jill launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Busselton at 17,165
Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 20 minutes

Japanese aircraft
D4Y1 Judy x 11

Japanese aircraft losses
D4Y1 Judy: 1 damaged

Allied Ships
BB Mississippi, Bomb hits 5, on fire, heavy damage

Aircraft Attacking:
5 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
6 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring an Allied CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Busselton at 17,165
Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 31 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 30
A6M5b Zero x 10
B6N2 Jill x 10
D4Y1 Judy x 16

Japanese aircraft losses
B6N2 Jill: 1 damaged
D4Y1 Judy: 3 damaged

Allied Ships
BB Mississippi, Bomb hits 3, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
AKV Engadine, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Henry S Grove, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
PG Hindustan, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk

Aircraft Attacking:
10 x B6N2 Jill launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
11 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
1 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
4 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring AKV Engadine
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring PG Hindustan

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

Ground Combat

Ground combat at 60,43
Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 38575 troops, 543 guns, 272 vehicles, Assault Value = 1851
Defending force 30884 troops, 456 guns, 136 vehicles, Assault Value = 925

Allied ground losses:
150 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 18 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Assaulting units:
5th Chinese Corps
20th Indian Division
23rd Indian Division
66th Chinese/B Corps
66th Chinese/C Corps
Burma Corps
20th Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
23rd Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
21st Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
14th Indian Light AA Regiment

Defending units:
11th Division
4th Division
3rd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
16th Field AA Machinecannon Company
15th Army
48th Field Artillery Regiment
1st Field Artillery Regiment
51st Field AA Battalion
11th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
2nd Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
18th Mountain Gun Regiment
13th Ind.Hvy.Art Battalion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Luganville (120,150)
Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 425 troops, 0 guns, 7 vehicles, Assault Value = 15
Defending force 25 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1

Allied adjusted assault: 4

Japanese adjusted defense: 1
Allied assault odds: 4 to 1

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

Japanese ground losses:
17 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Assaulting units:
14th NZ Bde /2

Defending units:
II/81st Nav Gd /1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japanese Unit(s) Wiped Out at Luganville by attrition!!!

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

Coupe de Grace

Image
Attachments
SNAG0691.jpg
SNAG0691.jpg (303.62 KiB) Viewed 267 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
bigbaba
Posts: 1238
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:12 pm
Location: Koblenz, Germany

RE: The Empire Strikes Back!

Post by bigbaba »

thats unbelivible..how can andy let his carrier fleet in a hot area without setting some fighters at escort and his bombers on naval attack? he must know that against you he has to expect the unexpected.

and even with this new fiasco, if his carriers were able to start a strike force of lets say 200 bombers with 100 fighters as escort and sink some japanese carriers, he could turn the fiasco of the last turns in to a draw since he can still lose CVs if he is able to sink some of yours too.

congratulations for this new victory PzB. it was a aggressive move to bring the reduced KB so far to the south short time after the battle.[&o]
User avatar
ny59giants
Posts: 9902
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm

RE: The Empire Strikes Back!

Post by ny59giants »

The Katsuragi is enroute to meet up with the KB.

How are you choosing to re-size the air units here?? Will you go with 1/2 your torpedo load of 36 (means 18 TBs).
[center]Image[/center]
User avatar
Emilio
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 9:46 am
Location: Valencia (Spain)

RE: The Empire Strikes Back!

Post by Emilio »

Wow!!!!!! Andy should be really short on BBs. Not to speak about CVs.
Royal Navy is out of the game until 1945 and those losses are definitive.

Please, could you post (again) the list ships sunk up to the date? Yours and his.

In the mean time... enjoy Valencia this week: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falles



Image
Attachments
Mascleta12.jpg
Mascleta12.jpg (42.52 KiB) Viewed 267 times
Emilio
mikhail
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 9:01 am

RE: The Empire Strikes Back!

Post by mikhail »

I have tears in my eyes...unbelievable success! Gratz PzB!
veji1
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 5:28 pm

RE: The Empire Strikes Back!

Post by veji1 »

My god, Andy must be beyond furious... You will make him paranoid and extra carful. Good !
Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 10798
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: The Empire Strikes Back!

Post by PaxMondo »

The bold reap the great profits ... looks like it works in both business and WITPAE!  Great job!
Pax
beppi
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:23 am
Location: Austria

RE: The Empire Strikes Back!

Post by beppi »

PzB have you considered splitting your two Carrier TFs into three ? Currently you are over the 250 Plane limits. I know that the lack of escorts makes it hard for japan to field to many CV TFs. Too large TFs do not have an effect on CAP (at least as i know) but the striking power and coordination can and might be reduced. It can result in smaller strikes or not good coordinated strikes.

Overall Andy does so many strange things that it sometimes even hurts to watch him. Especially his tendency to waste his battleships is astonishing. Even with withdrawls off he has a critical shortage on battleships already. During the battle of Waingapoe it was clear that surface forces alone can seriously disrupt every landing. So husband your surface fleet :)
User avatar
GreyJoy
Posts: 6750
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:34 pm

RE: The Empire Strikes Back!

Post by GreyJoy »

I've decided to buy this game today after 7 days of greedly reading of your AAR... Thanks. This game seems awesome and you're clearly doing a wonderfull job!
User avatar
Mynok
Posts: 12108
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2002 12:12 am
Contact:

RE: The Empire Strikes Back!

Post by Mynok »

ORIGINAL: beppi

PzB have you considered splitting your two Carrier TFs into three ? Currently you are over the 250 Plane limits. I know that the lack of escorts makes it hard for japan to field to many CV TFs. Too large TFs do not have an effect on CAP (at least as i know) but the striking power and coordination can and might be reduced. It can result in smaller strikes or not good coordinated strikes.

Japan's limit is larger. That's the Allied limit.....unless it changes for Japan at some point and I've forgotten this.
"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown
User avatar
Erkki
Posts: 1460
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 5:03 am

RE: The Empire Strikes Back!

Post by Erkki »

What 250 plane limit?
beppi
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:23 am
Location: Austria

RE: The Empire Strikes Back!

Post by beppi »

ORIGINAL: Mynok

ORIGINAL: beppi

PzB have you considered splitting your two Carrier TFs into three ? Currently you are over the 250 Plane limits. I know that the lack of escorts makes it hard for japan to field to many CV TFs. Too large TFs do not have an effect on CAP (at least as i know) but the striking power and coordination can and might be reduced. It can result in smaller strikes or not good coordinated strikes.

Japan's limit is larger. That's the Allied limit.....unless it changes for Japan at some point and I've forgotten this.

Sorry my mistake, limit is 200 for Japan always and allies after 44 (lower prior) + rnd(200). So more than 200 planes in a tf means chance for problems.

Manual page 167 -> Coordinating Strikes
User avatar
inqistor
Posts: 1813
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 1:19 pm

RE: The Empire Strikes Back!

Post by inqistor »

Heh, I just found, that Allied warships can not load troops under Fast Transport mission. At least in IRONMAN.

You can get quite a lot of informations, from all game reports, but who actually will read all this, every turn? [:)]

So, how many Allied BBs are still afloat? Around 2? [:D]
It seems, that large land reinforcements (Divisions) are pretty rare currently for Allies. Maybe it is time for some ultra-aggressive actions, before they recover?
Time, until April should be pretty safe, it will be tougher until October (production comparable to Japan), and then the HORROR will begin.
User avatar
Mynok
Posts: 12108
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2002 12:12 am
Contact:

RE: The Empire Strikes Back!

Post by Mynok »

ORIGINAL: beppi
ORIGINAL: Mynok

ORIGINAL: beppi

PzB have you considered splitting your two Carrier TFs into three ? Currently you are over the 250 Plane limits. I know that the lack of escorts makes it hard for japan to field to many CV TFs. Too large TFs do not have an effect on CAP (at least as i know) but the striking power and coordination can and might be reduced. It can result in smaller strikes or not good coordinated strikes.

Japan's limit is larger. That's the Allied limit.....unless it changes for Japan at some point and I've forgotten this.

Sorry my mistake, limit is 200 for Japan always and allies after 44 (lower prior) + rnd(200). So more than 200 planes in a tf means chance for problems.

Manual page 167 -> Coordinating Strikes

Which says:

Allied TF in 1942 and the number of aircraft in the
TF is greater than 100 + rnd (100).
»» Allied TF in 1943 and the number of aircraft in the
TF is greater than 150 + rnd (150).
»» Allied TF in 1944 or later or a Japanese TF at any time and the
number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 200 + rnd (200).

Which means 250 planes is almost always going to be ok for Japan, since the coordination range for Japan is between 200 and 400 aircraft.
"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown
beppi
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:23 am
Location: Austria

RE: The Empire Strikes Back!

Post by beppi »

ORIGINAL: Mynok

ORIGINAL: beppi
ORIGINAL: Mynok




Japan's limit is larger. That's the Allied limit.....unless it changes for Japan at some point and I've forgotten this.

Sorry my mistake, limit is 200 for Japan always and allies after 44 (lower prior) + rnd(200). So more than 200 planes in a tf means chance for problems.

Manual page 167 -> Coordinating Strikes

Which says:

Allied TF in 1942 and the number of aircraft in the
TF is greater than 100 + rnd (100).
»» Allied TF in 1943 and the number of aircraft in the
TF is greater than 150 + rnd (150).
»» Allied TF in 1944 or later or a Japanese TF at any time and the
number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 200 + rnd (200).

Which means 250 planes is almost always going to be ok for Japan, since the coordination range for Japan is between 200 and 400 aircraft.

What did i write ? More than 200 planes means chance for coordination malus, exactly what the manual say. 250 planes means 25% chance for double coordination penalty which can ruin your day.
User avatar
PzB74
Posts: 5069
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2000 8:00 am
Location: No(r)way

RE: The Empire Strikes Back!

Post by PzB74 »

Thx guys [:)]
It was a good hunt, a few good decisions coupled with good routines (checking intel each day) and a good amount of luck.
As I said to Andy, Murphy seems to be farting in your general directions these days [8|]
- So I hope you have a few words of encouragement for him and not only point the finger. This last couple of disasters were rather extraordinary!

I think 4-5 Jap carriers in each TF is a good arrangement; again - it all depends on mission type.
- Short range = low fuel requirements
- Long range = high fuel requirements (for escorts)
- Offensive / defensive mission (speed, surface combat protection)

The Katsuragi will have 27/18/18 ac loadout, the torpedo bomber is a great asset but with limited torpedos aboard a carrier we can't rely to heavily
on them. The Judy is just as important in its own role.

That's great GreyJoy, hope you enjoy the game
Remember that the highs are as great as the lows [;)] Nothing can make adrenaline flow as when loading up a turn were months of careful planning and husbanding
of resources is put at stake.

Hey, that looks like a mighty nice town and festival Emilio, hopefully you don't have to run in front of bulls? [;)]
Guess weather is nice in Spain now, I've had it with winter now!

Will post an overview of enemy vessels assumed sunk; looks like 20 battleships and 16-18 CV/CVL/CVEs!
With withdrawals off Allies will get loads of battleships in 44-45; Nelson, Rodney, Howe, King George V, Anson, Richelieu not to mention the new Iowas (4?), North Carolina, Washington...then the
Alaska class Battlecruisers....did I forget any? So I'll probably meet another 20 by the time this is over [8|]

More offensive actions? So you don't think I'm offensive enough Inq?-)
Been burning lots of fuel, pilots and ac, so need to restock first - and remember, I'm not taking KB close to major size enemy LBA bases!
Except for that and landing armies in Australia, India and Hawaii I'm quite open for good suggestions....

Really not much to report except from ground bombing in Burma!
Now equipping 2 George units with vet pilots, another will arrive tomorrow.
Together with Tonys and the gradual phase out of all Tojos and Oscar our Army Air Force will become much more potent in 1944.
...well, the George belongs to the Navy, only wish we had a proper replacement for the Zeke in 44 instead of mid 45.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Nov 11, 43

List of (reportedly) sunk battleships and carriers;
..the CV Victorious is missing in this list, but I don't think the Essex class Yorktown sank.

Image
Attachments
SNAG0695.jpg
SNAG0695.jpg (130.06 KiB) Viewed 267 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
janh
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:06 pm

RE: The Empire Strikes Back!

Post by janh »

Congrats PzB -- excellent planning, daring and execution paired with a good double shot of luck.  That intel couldn't have come at a better moment.  Murphy really ain't Andy's best friend these days...

Whether more offensive action is required... tough since allied LBA is so strong at this point.  Else I would always favor executing an offensive at a moment where you rule the game, but I would now be worried of wasting KB pilots for winning just a few extra days or weeks...  If at all, another offensive should be targeting allied naval assets, repair yards etc. rather than anything else.  Yet the US CV will be gone for a while, so would it really be worth hitting a few critical ports?
User avatar
GreyJoy
Posts: 6750
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:34 pm

RE: The Empire Strikes Back!

Post by GreyJoy »

Considering that allied CVs are off the game for some time, and considering you wanna avoid any contact between your KB and allied LBA, i'd go for raiding his supply routes in Indian Ocean and in the pacific. Andy must have, by this stage, lots of merchants going up and down from SF to Oz and from Oz to Aden/India...easy and juicy preys for very very small risk
User avatar
Mynok
Posts: 12108
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2002 12:12 am
Contact:

RE: The Empire Strikes Back!

Post by Mynok »

I think 4-5 Jap carriers in each TF is a good arrangement; again - it all depends on mission type.

Agreed.
"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown
User avatar
PzB74
Posts: 5069
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2000 8:00 am
Location: No(r)way

RE: The Empire Strikes Back!

Post by PzB74 »

Thx Jahn! Yes, incredible timing with that intel - would have passed behind the Allied fleets if not.
Darwin is as always a tempting target, a trip up to Ceylon is also within range...and yes commerce raiding with fast Car Divs is also tempting.
But first, 1 week to steam home, 1 week for R&R and then we'll see.

Also been thinking about how to deploy LBA in future; it's tempting to gather ALL our resources for the next decisive battle.
Through everything in and again try to blunt enemy carrier air strength.

Considering to reduce our committment in the Line Islands; got ca 2000 AV and would like to withdraw half or more of these and send the troops to the rear over the next
few months. A shallower outer defensive perimeter for 1944 sounds sensible, the one who wants to defend everything defends nothing!

In 01/44 the Peggy army bomber goes into production; what do you think of this ac?


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Nov 11, 43

Again, more of the same..ground attacks in Burma only and attacks against jungle hexes provides ~0 effect.

Peggy Army Bomber

Image
Attachments
Peggy.jpg
Peggy.jpg (7.56 KiB) Viewed 267 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
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”