Jorge's(A) crusade to the fabled kingdom of PresterJohn(J) DBB-C --- Allied AAR

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

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

User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

June 2nd: KB sweeps Luganville, G3M3 debuts

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

June 2nd was a good turn

KB did a sweep over Luganville, but I had 50 fighters waiting, and results were more than good, I didn't lost a single plane while 8 Zeros went down according to the tracker (I know it is overstated, but still). Interesting he didn't sent a strike force to bomb the airbase/ port. Either he was worried about the fighters on CAP or maybe the weather played in my favor.
Other than the sweep, there was no KB strike, the suvivors are getting out of KB range now. That said, xAK Doryssa and its AA cargo won't make it. it failed to extinguish the fires which are now at 57... it will likely sink tomorrow.

Tomorrow I expect naval bombing and maybe KB strikes at Luganville... It will be painful to watch, but anyway, I decided move out all Catalinas, and then to re-base 2 more fighter squadrons there.. so there is a total of around 100 fighters, they are needed if KB bombs it.
Although I am fully aware of how good a target this will be for the naval bombing, I still wanted to have a chance of killing more KB pilots if he decides to bomb. The fighter inventories are good now, so I can afford to lose some P-40s/ P-39s. Moreover, most of the naval bombing losses are usually damaged, not destroyed planes.

What else, G3M3 debuted with an unsuccesuful attempt to bomb Diego Garcia... only 3 bombers arrived, Martlets and Fulmars provided the welcome party and the party was so good they decided to remain forever [;)]

Image

Morning Air attack on Luganville , at 120,150

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 119 NM, estimated altitude 20,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 39 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 27

Allied aircraft
P-400 Airacobra x 22
P-40E Warhawk x 23

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 3 destroyed

No Allied losses

CAP engaged:
15th FG/46th FS with P-400 Airacobra (4 airborne, 15 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 27000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 17 minutes
18th FG/78th FS with P-40E Warhawk (4 airborne, 16 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 13000 and 25000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 21 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Diego Garcia at 11,62

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 38 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 14 minutes

Japanese aircraft
G3M3 Nell x 3

Allied aircraft
Fulmar II x 3
Martlet II x 2

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M3 Nell: 2 destroyed

No Allied losses

CAP engaged:
No.803 Sqn FAA with Fulmar II (1 airborne, 2 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 5000 , scrambling fighters to 7000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes
No.135 Sqn RAF with Martlet II (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 10000.
Raid is overhead


Attachments
screenshot..15_04_14.jpg
screenshot..15_04_14.jpg (472.27 KiB) Viewed 141 times
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: June 2nd: KB sweeps Luganville, G3M3 debuts

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

I will have some news on India next turn, but today I want to discuss Wake:

2 or 3 turns ago (the moment I saw the KB near Ndeni), I sent 4 USN TFs, including carriers and battleships on direction to Wake. Rationale was simple and obvious, as long as he is in the SW Pacific, I have free reign on the Central Pacific. Even if the aims are limited, it is still a win-win scenario: KB either pull back and start a very long range pursue or he will have to watch how I wreck havoc on Wake island.

The 4 TFs are:
Air combat: 3 Yorktown carriers + supporting cruisers and DDs
Battleship: 5 Battleships + supporting DDs
Cruiser TF#1: 4 Light cruiser + supporting DD following Air Combat TF
Cruiser TF#2: 4 Heavy cruisers + supporting DD following Battleship TF

Some notes:
I decided to start Lexington and Saratoga's June refit, 3 carriers are more than enough to deal with anything except KB, and I don't plan to fight the KB which is far away near Luganville
Light cruisers TF to act as support, if there is chance of surface combat, the cruisers will accept the challenge while the carriers go back
Battleships are West Virginia, Nevada, Oklahoma, Arizona and Warspite... which means a "slow" TF, their main objective is to bombard
Heavy cruisers TF will be supporting battleships, they will cover the retreat once BBs are out of ammo. If no threat is found, they will also bombard

So this was the original plan, a very simple, "vanilla" raid to Wake island... but then look at the map... I should had been spotted a turn ago, the lack of naval search at Wake island means I can potentially expand operations to something even better than bombing a barren rock:
Image

Thus the temptation to keep going is too great... Fingers crossed: if I don't get spotted next turn, then I will attempt to put the carriers north of Truk and see if I can catch a juicy TF
Attachments
screenshot..5_04_14a.jpg
screenshot..5_04_14a.jpg (396.47 KiB) Viewed 141 times
jwolf
Posts: 2493
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 4:02 pm

RE: June 2nd: KB sweeps Luganville, G3M3 debuts

Post by jwolf »

Whatever happens near Truk, suppose for the sake of argument that you do bombard Wake and/or bomb the airfield. Let's suppose further that you do so much damage that the airfield is shut down for a while. Question: for how long? With this kind of operation, if successful, how long could you count on there being a huge hole in his nav search at Wake? I'm wondering if you could open up more opportunities during the next few weeks (??) or force him to commit a major force near Wake in reserve.
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: June 2nd: KB sweeps Luganville, G3M3 debuts

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

I can't control the timing of operations because the KB dictates when and how I can react. Simply put, I cannot plan for any foray if the location of KB is unknown.

The main reason for doing any carrier operation in 1942 is to discourage the use of KB non-stop; I have lost quite a few ships in the last 2 turns due to the KB being unleashed; if I can put a little pressure on CENPAC, then he might withdraw it from SWPAC.

Moreover, I might get lucky in Truk... I might fish something interesting... bombing Wake is just the last resort "prize" if everything else fails
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

June 3rd: BBs "nuke" Luganville

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

If you remember, I said "most of the naval bombing losses are usually damaged, not destroyed planes."

Please disregard [:(] Big mistake [8|]

On June 3rd, Luganville got "nuked" by a relatively small TF; results were horrendous:
13 P-400, 12 P-39Ds, 10 P-40, 2 Catalinas lost
runway damage 29, service damage 63
supply lost: 2,877

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Luganville at 120,150

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 26 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 7 destroyed on ground
P-400 Airacobra: 28 damaged
P-400 Airacobra: 7 destroyed on ground
P-39D Airacobra: 15 damaged
P-39D Airacobra: 6 destroyed on ground
PBY-5 Catalina: 1 destroyed on ground

Japanese Ships
BB Hyuga
BB Ise
CA Mogami
CA Nachi

Allied ground losses:
210 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 6 destroyed, 8 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 7 disabled
Guns lost 20 (7 destroyed, 13 disabled)
Vehicles lost 9 (6 destroyed, 3 disabled)

Airbase hits 7
Airbase supply hits 5
Runway hits 24

BB Hyuga firing at 32nd Infantry Division
BB Ise firing at Luganville
CA Mogami firing at 32nd Infantry Division
F1M2 Pete acting as spotter for CA Nachi
CA Nachi firing at 32nd Infantry Division
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20566
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: June 3rd: BBs "nuke" Luganville

Post by BBfanboy »

Mines and PT boats are useful to keep bombardment TFs from being too effective.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: June 3rd: BBs "nuke" Luganville

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

I haven't have a lot of luck with mines... I remember he kept bombing Soerabaja and Diamond Harbor with very little mine damage.
Maybe if I have lots and lots of mines.. which of course I lack now

As per PT boats.. I didn't know I have 30 boats.. thanks... I guess I will "build" them as soon as I correct the supply problem
EDIT: Actually these 30 are British MTBs... would they be as efficient as a PT?

By the way... better news from CENPAC: the carriers are still undetected and already inside Japanese waters!!

Image
Attachments
screenshot..15_04_14.jpg
screenshot..15_04_14.jpg (355.21 KiB) Viewed 141 times
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: June 3rd: BBs "nuke" Luganville

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

Actually, the reason I only get mediocre MTB is that I was trying to build them in Suva. which is a New Zealand base

Of course I want to build the USN PT boats instead.. can I use a US cargo ship to generate them directly in Luganville?
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20566
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: June 3rd: BBs "nuke" Luganville

Post by BBfanboy »

From the Manual:

To create a PT boat or barge:
»» Form a Transport TF and load supplies onto it. Once this is done, at any
time the TF may convert some of the loaded supplies to create a TF of
barges or to create a TF of PT boats by clicking on the appropriate Create
Barge, Create PT Boats, Create MGB or Create SSX arrow button. This is
done from the TF Information Screen of the TF carrying the supplies.
»» Build them from any base with a current port size of
at least 1 and more than 10000 supplies.
When the barge or PT boat TF is created, it will consist of up to 15 barges or 12 PT boats and/
or MGBs or 4 Midget Subs if these ships are currently available to be brought into the game. As
long as there are supplies carried by the creating TF and there are ships available, the TF can
continue to create additional barge or PT boat Task Forces.
Supplies are used up for each ship created as follows:
Midget Sub 100 Supply Points
LCT 60 Supply Points
PT Boat 50 Supply Points
MGB 50 Supply Points
Large LB 35 Supply Points
LCM 25 Supply Points
Small LB 20 Supply Points
LCVP 10 Supply Points
In all cases, the above listed supply point cost is a minimum cost. Any PT, MGB, SSX or barge
with a tonnage greater than the listed supply cost will have its cost increased to its tonnage.
The number of barges and PT boats available to you can be found on the Ship Availability
Screen accessed through the Intelligence Screen.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: June 3rd: BBs "nuke" Luganville

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

Yes but somehow the PT boat option is greyed out in Suva:

and of course supply is not an issue
Image
Attachments
screenshot..15_04_14.jpg
screenshot..15_04_14.jpg (223.98 KiB) Viewed 141 times
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: June 3rd: BBs "nuke" Luganville

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Yes but somehow the PT boat option is greyed out in Suva:

and of course supply is not an issue
Image
It's (HQ-wise) an NZ Base, I think that's why.
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: June 3rd: BBs "nuke" Luganville

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

Yes that is what I was thinking, but it is not in the manual.

India:

Finally all 4E bombers (safely) arrived to India:

I have 80 B-17Es; most are in Bombay, still in crates. And if the time it is taking to get the P-38s ready is a good indicator, I will need at least a week to be ready

Image

The plan is very simple:
- base B-17s to Hyderabad which will reach level 8 airfield tomorrow,
- base P-38s and fighters with extended range of 7 to Madras
- Start a daylight bombing at Trincomalee, a level 3 airfield with 33 fighters, 58 bombers and 39 auxiliaries
- Secondary target: Vizagadpadma, a level 2 airfield with 24 fighters
Attachments
screenshot..15_04_14.jpg
screenshot..15_04_14.jpg (257 KiB) Viewed 141 times
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20566
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: June 3rd: BBs "nuke" Luganville

Post by BBfanboy »

Don't know about the HQ issue in creating PTs, but I do know there is a limit to how many you can have on the map, so if you have PTs at other locations that use up your limit, the "Create PT Boats" option gets greyed out. As the manual says, you can check your Ship Availability Screen to see if there is any room to create more. If not, you would have to disband some PTs and after a delay should be able to make more.
I will try in my current game to see if a non-US base can make PTs.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: June 3rd: BBs "nuke" Luganville

Post by witpqs »

My point is that you cannot, for example, create USN PT Boats at non-US HQ'd ports AFAIK.
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: June 3rd: BBs "nuke" Luganville

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

I was able to create PTs in Brisbane
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: June 3rd: BBs "nuke" Luganville

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

I was able to create PTs in Brisbane
Another theory down the tubes... [:D]
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: June 3rd: BBs "nuke" Luganville

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

I was able to create PTs in Brisbane
Another theory down the tubes... [:D]
But what US units were at Brisbane when you did that?
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20566
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: June 3rd: BBs "nuke" Luganville

Post by BBfanboy »

Thank you Jorge - I went to my game to see if I could do that but have used all my quotas of PTs and MTBS/MGBs, and couldn't figure out how to put them back in the pool (there are no cargo ships currently at their location). I will keep trying and see if I can create MTBs at a US Base!
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: June 3rd: BBs "nuke" Luganville

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

This is Brisbane:

Which units? so many really, in terms of HQ:
SW Pacific Theatre... McArthur's !
2 HQ a
1 HQ c

EDIT: I can build PTs in PH, Midway, PagoPago, Christmas, Palmyra, even Johnston island
I can't build PTs in Auckland or Suva
so looks like it is HQ related

Image
Attachments
screenshot..15_04_14.jpg
screenshot..15_04_14.jpg (226 KiB) Viewed 141 times
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: June 3rd: BBs "nuke" Luganville

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

I almost forgot; from time to time you get good intel

Is he really trying to land in Perth? or is this just bull to throw me off?

Image
Attachments
screenshot..15_04_14.jpg
screenshot..15_04_14.jpg (200.62 KiB) Viewed 141 times
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”