Argentina vs. USA: Aurorus (J) vs. Apbarog (A)

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

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

Aurorus
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 5:08 pm

RE: Argentina vs. USA: Aurorus (J) vs. Apbarog (A)

Post by Aurorus »

Here is the situation in SoPac at the end of the 8 June 1942 turn. As part of the general "distraction" from Fiji, I moved Nagato and Mutsu to Koumec on the 6th of June. I spotted a large xAK group offloading supplies at Noumea, and I thought to force them flee. I also hoped that Apbarog would send in CVs against an uncovered SCTF for a potential CAP trap at Koumac. When nothing developed on the 7th, I sent the BBs to Luganville to stage for a bombardment of Fiji in support of the coming landing.

As the BBs were withdrawing to Luganville, Apbarog sent in a CL group to Koumac. He must not have realized that there were Japanese BBs present. Unfortunately, the CL group arrived immediately after the BBs had withdrawn, and I missed a splendid opportunity to sink more allied surface assets by 1 or 2 hexes of movement. The allied CL group was able to sink the Japanese MTB squadron while it was docked at Koumac.

Image
Attachments
Sopac.jpg
Sopac.jpg (534.04 KiB) Viewed 281 times
Aurorus
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 5:08 pm

RE: Argentina vs. USA: Aurorus (J) vs. Apbarog (A)

Post by Aurorus »

I have little DL on Fuji, but it appears that the allied garrison there is small relative to what is coming. 3 DL (which could be very wrong) reveals 6 allied units with 3,500 troops at Suva. If I can take Fiji with these 2 divisions, I should be well positioned to move on Vava U and Pago Pago. It will almost certainly be a major battle for Fiji and the Samoans, since Apbarog seems determined to keep the route to Australia open. Of course, a major battle is exactly what I want.

I need another CA squadron in SoPac badly. I have 4 CAs at Singapore, 2 in the Phillipines, and 2 repairing at the Home Islands. 4 of these will need to be in SoPac soon. With the loss of so many Japanese CLs, I will have to rely on my CAs a great deal (even more than usual).
User avatar
MakeeLearn
Posts: 4274
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:01 pm

RE: Argentina vs. USA: Aurorus (J) vs. Apbarog (A)

Post by MakeeLearn »

Weather in hex: Heavy rain
B5N1 Kate x 18
B5N2 Kate x 99
...bombing from 11000 feet.


Wonder if a lower altitude would have gotten some hits, in such bad weather?






User avatar
MakeeLearn
Posts: 4274
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:01 pm

RE: Argentina vs. USA: Aurorus (J) vs. Apbarog (A)

Post by MakeeLearn »

How is Apbarog doing with his reconnaissance?






adarbrauner
Posts: 1513
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 3:40 am
Location: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy

RE: Argentina vs. USA: Aurorus (J) vs. Apbarog (A)

Post by adarbrauner »

How do u get recon over Fijis and Samoa?
Aurorus
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 5:08 pm

RE: Argentina vs. USA: Aurorus (J) vs. Apbarog (A)

Post by Aurorus »

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

How is Apbarog doing with his reconnaissance?


He does not use recon as much as I do. Of course, I have never played against anyone who does use recon as much as I do. I recon as much as possible as often as possible. I break down the size 12 recon groups into 3 size 4 groups, so I have approximately 12 different recon squadrons in China (reconning 12 different hexes), 12 recon groups in Burma, 8 recon groups around the Phillipines, and 6 recon groups in Australia and SoPac.

The recon that I have on Suva now is provied by Betties flying recon missions from Luganville. The DL on the Samoan Islands is the result of the airstrike on Pago Pago and a Val DB strike on the Samoa Btn.

As to the Kate strike, I wanted to stay above the 40mm AA ceiling (which is 9k). Also the port strike was a secondary target with a naval strike as the primary target. The Kates were set with Vals, and if a naval target did present, I wanted the strike to coordinate at an altitude in which the Vals could dive bomb and the A6M2s had some room to climb and remain in their best manuever band. 11 or 12K are the altitudes that I prefer for coordinated DB and TB naval strikes at this point in the war.

I had 0 DL on the base before the attack, and the weather was poor, so these may have been the decisive factors. Nevertheless, I have bombed bases in poor weather with 0 DL before and have never seen so many bombers score no hits on anything. It does not make that much difference. The port was empty (1 xAK according to my recon), and the message was delivered that he cannot safely dock TKs, AKs, and troop transports anywhere in SoPac for any length of time without significant fighter cover.
adarbrauner
Posts: 1513
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 3:40 am
Location: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy

RE: Argentina vs. USA: Aurorus (J) vs. Apbarog (A)

Post by adarbrauner »

Reconing with Bettis? How? high recon skills?
Aurorus
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 5:08 pm

RE: Argentina vs. USA: Aurorus (J) vs. Apbarog (A)

Post by Aurorus »

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

Reconing with Bettis? How? high recon skills?

I divided a size 27 betty unit in 3. 2 are conducting naval search missions and the 3rd is staffed with C5M2 pilots with 70 recon. The Betty is not a great recon plane, however, and rarely generates good DLs, even with good recon pilots. It also has a tendency to be shot down when reconning bases with CAP, and IJN recon pilots are in short supply, so it is something that I do sparingly.

I think that I may transfer down my 4 Emilies and use these instead for long-range recon in SoPac. I train all my float-plane pilots in recon. The Emilies are probably less likely to be shot down as well.
User avatar
Yaab
Posts: 5449
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:09 pm
Location: Poland

RE: Argentina vs. USA: Aurorus (J) vs. Apbarog (A)

Post by Yaab »

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

All 7 CVs (including Junyo) and the 3 CVLs are sweeping south in advance of a move on Fiji and the Samoan Islands. The idea is to cut off Fuel and supply shipments to Australia to slow the allied build-up and force the allies to move materials and troops off-map if Apbarog wishes to build up Australia. All of this in an effort to prevent any early alled effort on the DEI and retain access to DEI materials for as long as possible. Suva, Vava U, Canton Island, and Pago Pago are the only allied ports larger than size 1 between Christmas Island and New Zealand. Apbarog cannot store fuel or supplies (especially fuel) at size 1 bases without suffering large losses to spoilage. The plan is to deny the allies any fuel depot between Pearl Harbor and New Zealand. I sank a number of allied TKs in the DEI in the first days of the war, and I want the allied TKs and AOs to be stretched to the limit: refueing TFs instead of hauling fuel to Australia.

Don't forget the sweet little port at Rangiroa in Tahiti. It can be built to port level 5. He can just move loaded TKs from Los Angeles to off-map, and from off-map (Cristobal) to Rangiroa, and build a nice stock of fuel at Rangiroa.
Aurorus
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 5:08 pm

RE: Argentina vs. USA: Aurorus (J) vs. Apbarog (A)

Post by Aurorus »

ORIGINAL: Yaab


Don't forget the sweet little port at Rangiroa in Tahiti. It can be built to port level 5. He can just move loaded TKs from Los Angeles to off-map, and from off-map (Cristobal) to Rangiroa, and build a nice stock of fuel at Rangiroa.


Tahiti and Rangiroa show no signs of development, and I do not recall receiving any radio transmissions from either base to indicate the presence of allied assets, though I do not use intelmonkey, so my memory may be in error. Whatever the case, Tahiti is a major detour between Pearl Harbor and New Zealand and Australia. Cutting Pearl off from New Zealand and Australia would be very helpful, since he would have to build up supply and fuel stockpiles in two separate regions without a direct link between the two. So, if I can force him to begin his counter-offensive from Tahiti, I will have accomplished more than my hopes.

Mostly, I am just hoping to force a major CV engagement in 1942 and then hoping that I win that engagement decisively so that the allies cannot mount a 1943 offensive and must wait for 1944. If I can sink a few more TKs or AOs that would be helpful as well.

It is a high-risk strategy that I pursue in this game, in my opinion. It is far more risky than the strategy I have adopted in my game against Opilot. The risk is that I lose my slim CV advantage while I have 5 good IJA divisions, artillery, several armor regiments, and a host of other support units far into SoPac. Conducting an orderly withdrawal from such a far-flung position without a CV advantage will be very difficult.

If it comes off well, it will appear to be a brilliant strategy. If it comes off poorly, it will appear to be a very poor strategic decision. It is neither, of course. It is merely a high-risk, high-reward decision.
User avatar
Yaab
Posts: 5449
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:09 pm
Location: Poland

RE: Argentina vs. USA: Aurorus (J) vs. Apbarog (A)

Post by Yaab »

You can feed Auckland, NZ from Rangiroa by long-legged TKs. On the last leg of the journey you ditch Auckland-Sydney route because the route is obvious. You move the fuel from Wellington,NZ (or even Christchurch, NZ) to Melbourne, AUS. It takes SOME tailoring of TKs to match the route lengths and to build up the ports, but it can be done. Japs can interdict the Rangiroa - Auckland route, but would have a hard time intedicting off map-Rangiroa and Wellington-Melbourne routes. If you can sever the Rangiroa-Auckland route, then yes, the Pacific links between USA and Australia are cut.
Aurorus
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 5:08 pm

RE: Argentina vs. USA: Aurorus (J) vs. Apbarog (A)

Post by Aurorus »

ORIGINAL: Yaab

You can feed Auckland, NZ from Rangiroa by long-legged TKs. On the last leg of the journey you ditch Auckland-Sydney route because the route is obvious. You move the fuel from Wellington,NZ (or even Christchurch, NZ) to Melbourne, AUS. It takes SOME tailoring of TKs to match the route lengths and to build up the ports, but it can be done. Japs can interdict the Rangiroa - Auckland route, but would have a hard time intedicting off map-Rangiroa and Wellington-Melbourne routes. If you can sever the Rangiroa-Auckland route, then yes, the Pacific links between USA and Australia are cut.


You make a good point. If I can take Fiji and the Samoan Islands, he will be reduced to one route: the Tahiti-Auckland route to build up fuel and supply depots in SoPac. This would give me an opportunity to sink more TKs and AOs. I really think that nothing will slow the allies down more than destroying TKs and AOs.

We are very far ahead of events, however. I will just be happy to land on Fiji without losing a division and half my CV force at sea. Suva is a size 6 airfield, and he has at least 160 LBA fighters, 5 CVs, 3 CVLs, and at least 3 BBs in this theater now. I am sailing 2 divisions into the entire allied air and naval forces and I make my initial landing out of range of most of my LBA cover.
Aurorus
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 5:08 pm

RE: Argentina vs. USA: Aurorus (J) vs. Apbarog (A)

Post by Aurorus »

The June 10th turn is away. I worked on this turn for 5 hours, and I am still certain that there is something that I forgot. The CVs, 2 BB groups, and the first wave are moving into position for the invasion of Fiji. This will be the most dangerous amphibious operation that I remember conducting, landing directly adjacent to an unsuppressed size 6 airfield in an area where the majority of the allied fleet is located. It is essential that I bombard Suva.

The main BB group will move into a position 1 space to the SE of the CVs and the first wave amphibious group, 7 hexes from Suva and 6 hexes from Nadi. The first wave and the CVs will remain 8 hexes away from Suva and 7 hexes from Nadi arranged for very heavy CAP and lighter escort. The B5N1s have been removed from Shoho and Zuiho and replaced with A6M2s, so there are 30 A6M2s on each of the small CVLs. Akagi also has 30 A6M2s. Kaga, Ryujo, Junyo, Hiryu and Soryu have 27 A6M2s. Zuikaku and Shokaku have only 18 each. So there are a total of 261 A6M2s available to 1st Air Fleet. The Kates and Vals are limited to a range of 6 for this turn to avoid flying into a heavy CAP trap at Nadi, which is one hex from Suva. Approximately 70% of the CAP fighters are set to ¨leaky CAP¨ with a range of 1 to cover the the BB group, which will be 7 hexes from Suva (and possible set a CAP trap for unescorted LBA or LBA escorted by F4Fs flying at extended range)

The first wave will move into Nadi next turn, but because it will be 8 hexes away, it will only have 1 unload impulse next turn. Tanaka, in command of Nagato and Mutsu, will cover the landing. The main BB group, commanded by Bunji Asakura (who is rated slightly better than Tanaka at 91 Naval and 85 aggression) will begin next turn 7 hexes from Suva. Much depends on Asakura´s group bombarding Suva effectively next turn and then withdrawing to Luganville. The first wave will go in with cover only from the 60 A6M2s on Zuiho and Shoho. The CVs and Ryjuo will move to a position between Suva and Noumea to try to intecept the allied CVs if they sortie.

There has been little radio traffic from the major allied ports in the past few days. There was heavy radio traffic at Vava U 3 days ago, when I suspect that Apbarog withdrew something in case KB moved south to port-strike that port (I attacked Pago Pago instead). There was heavy radio traffic today at Sydney, which may be the U.S. CVs sortieing.

I am gambling that the U.S. CVs were in port in New Zealand or Australia and not east or southeast of Fiji. There is a CL group roaming the area, which disappeared from Noumea today.

So long as Tanaka can keep those CLs away from the amphibious group, Asakura can bombard Suva, the U.S. CVs do not unexpectedly strike from the east and hit the CVLs and the first wave, allied submarines do not torpedo multiple ships, and nothing else unexpected happens, the IJA will be ashore on Fiji. The odds of all of this happening according to plan are very low, but that is why the game is fun.
adarbrauner
Posts: 1513
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 3:40 am
Location: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy

RE: Argentina vs. USA: Aurorus (J) vs. Apbarog (A)

Post by adarbrauner »

Have you calculated embarked land units disruption by sea traveling? Where did they embark? What the total estimated sailing time to landing? Do you expect shore guns shelling, and mines? how thick is the escort screen? Do you think 2 divisions shall be enough? have you embarked support (I.E. naval and air support)? Are you bringing any artillery with you? any armor? Is there a supply convoy ready to come for after location's conquest? What air units have you planned to base at the FIjis? Do 1 eng have the range to fly there directly? Are you bringing miners and AMcs? Have you allocated the fuel to be stored at the fijies? do you plan to station any combat naval fleet at Fiji, as a deterrent for self defense but also for naval traffic attacks?
adarbrauner
Posts: 1513
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 3:40 am
Location: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy

RE: Argentina vs. USA: Aurorus (J) vs. Apbarog (A)

Post by adarbrauner »

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

Have you calculated embarked land units disruption by sea traveling? Where did they embark? What the total estimated sailing time to landing? Do you expect shore guns shelling, and mines? how thick is the escort screen? Do you think 2 divisions shall be enough? have you embarked support (I.E. naval and air support)? Are you bringing any artillery with you? any armor? Is there a supply convoy ready to come for after location's conquest? What air units have you planned to base at the FIjis? Do 1 eng have the range to fly there directly? Are you bringing miners and AMcs? Have you allocated the fuel to be stored at the fijies? do you plan to station any combat naval fleet at Fiji, as a deterrent for self defense but also for naval traffic attacks?
Bringing AA as well?
Aurorus
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 5:08 pm

RE: Argentina vs. USA: Aurorus (J) vs. Apbarog (A)

Post by Aurorus »

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

Have you calculated embarked land units disruption by sea traveling? Where did they embark? What the total estimated sailing time to landing? Do you expect shore guns shelling, and mines? how thick is the escort screen? Do you think 2 divisions shall be enough? have you embarked support (I.E. naval and air support)? Are you bringing any artillery with you? any armor? Is there a supply convoy ready to come for after location's conquest? What air units have you planned to base at the FIjis? Do 1 eng have the range to fly there directly? Are you bringing miners and AMcs? Have you allocated the fuel to be stored at the fijies? do you plan to station any combat naval fleet at Fiji, as a deterrent for self defense but also for naval traffic attacks?

The landing will be at Nadi. I do not expect shore guns. The first wave is a TF consisting of a CL, 3 DDs, 3 APDs, 3 DMS, and 9 APs. It contains 2 regiments that are not fully prepped for Nadi (about 60% prep), so there will be some disruption and some disabled squads on landing. BBs Nagato and Mutsu with escort, commanded by Tanaka, will provide surface cover for the landing at Nadi. A TF containing Kongo and Haruna, the 3 Takao-class CAs, and escorts will be plotted to bombard Suva. The idea is to damage planes and reduce the number of allied LBA that can respond to the initial landing. The 2 regiments loaded at Rabaul and Tulagi and will be at sea 4 or 5 days before landing. 2 DMS will move 1 hex ahead of the first wave.

A 2nd and 3rd wave are moving into position near Luganville. These TFs are also composed of a CL, DD escort, and APs and AK-ts. The 2nd and 3rd waves contain 2 regiments, a brigade, 2 artillery units, an combat engineer unit, and a recon unit. A fourth wave of 3 armored regiments and a port unit is on AKs and is nearing Tulagi. A fast Transport TF consisting of a CL, 5 DDS, and 2 APDs is 1 day from Ndeni and will embark a JNAF battalion to land at Nadi. A heavy CA group is also 1 day from Ndeni, where they will replenish ammo, load a 2nd JNAF battalion and move in as a fast transport/ cover group for the later waves.

3 AOs have recently replenished fuel for the 1st wave TF, so that it can move at full speed to Nadi. These AOs have 15K fuel left and will refuel the bombardment group at Luganville. 5 more fast AOs, loaded with 60K fuel are also nearing Tulagi. These will move down north of Ndeni and refuel the CVs, CAs, and Tanaka's group between waves. There are AKEs at Luganville, Ndeni, Tulagi, and Koumac. There is also a small stockpile of fuel at Luganville which I have been moving down for several weeks in YOs.

This is big operation. Conducting this operation simultaneous with the landings at Luzon has put nearly every IJN combat ship into action at the same time, and I am desperately short of escorts. I have 4 heavy CAs doing nothing at this moment for lack of DD escorts. It would have been ideal to wait for the Luzon landings to be completed, but I did not want to give Apbarog any more time to build up his land forces in the region. He recently made a major move on Noumea, landing 20K troops which he brought from several bases, including Suva. Another week and he would have, no doubt, brought additional reinforcements to the theater.

At Nadi, I will be out of range of LBA cover. I have 78 Oscar 1cs at Koumac and 90 A6M2s at Luganville: the crack Tainan and 3rd Ku sqadrons. There are 63 Betties in the theater, mostly performing naval search, 14 Mavis, 27 Jakes, and 2 squadrons of recon. There are 40 Vals in the Marshalls, 45 Betties at Moresby, and another 36 Oscars in Australia which can be in the theater in 2 days. There is an air HQ at Koumac. I will see what develops tomorrow. He has already transferred 1 squadron of fighters from Koumac elsewhere, probably to Suva. If he transfers a 2nd squadron, I may use Netties from Koumac with LBA A6M2 escort to cover the western and southern approaches to Fiji, and move the whole of 1st air fleet 1 hex from Nadi in full CAP mode tomorrow. We will see what develops.
Aurorus
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 5:08 pm

RE: Argentina vs. USA: Aurorus (J) vs. Apbarog (A)

Post by Aurorus »

In other war news, an ace pilot from Kaga was KIA when his plane crashed after a routine patrol yesterday. He is the first Japanese ace to be KIA. Also, J. Sasai appears not to have been badly wounded in the battle over Koumac 3 weeks ago. He has returned to action in his Tainan squadron. He lost 7 points of experience though as a result of his wounds. He was an experience 85 pilot. He is now an experience 78 pilot. It is good to have his 80 air and 80 defense back in the action even though he is no longer Tracom eligible. Interesting how injuries to pilots can reduce their experience. I wonder if he will still be able to conduct "head-on" attacks on 4-Es, which had been his specialty, performing 4 such attacks and netting 4 4-E kills. He also received a promotion upon his return and is now a squadron leader. I may give him his own squadron later in the war if he can avoid allied DB gunners.

Image
Attachments
banana.jpg
banana.jpg (193.78 KiB) Viewed 281 times
tarkalak
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:49 am
Location: Bulgaria

RE: Argentina vs. USA: Aurorus (J) vs. Apbarog (A)

Post by tarkalak »

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

In other war news, an ace pilot from Kaga was KIA when his plane crashed after a routine patrol yesterday. He is the first Japanese ace to be KIA. Also, J. Sasai appears not to have been badly wounded in the battle over Koumac 3 weeks ago. He has returned to action in his Tainan squadron. He lost 7 points of experience though as a result of his wounds. He was an experience 85 pilot. He is now an experience 78 pilot. It is good to have his 80 air and 80 defense back in the action even though he is no longer Tracom eligible. Interesting how injuries to pilots can reduce their experience. I wonder if he will still be able to conduct "head-on" attacks on 4-Es, which had been his specialty, performing 4 such attacks and netting 4 4-E kills. He also received a promotion upon his return and is now a squadron leader. I may give him his own squadron later in the war if he can avoid allied DB gunners.

Image

This is Sasai not Saburo Sakai. :)

Sakai was wounded by a TB.
I do not know what is scarier: that I do understand nothing of this demonic script or that I am starting to see the demons that it evokes.

Me, studying for a PHD entry exam in Applied Mathematics.
Aurorus
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 5:08 pm

RE: Argentina vs. USA: Aurorus (J) vs. Apbarog (A)

Post by Aurorus »

ORIGINAL: tarkalak

This is Sasai not Saburo Sakai. :)

Sakai was wounded by a TB.

I apogize if the image is misleading and my explanation is confusing. The name circled is Junichi Sasai. He was the wounded pilot at Noumea in early May and the one who lost 7 experience. The pilot above him is indeed Saburo Sakai. Sakai was not wounded that day and had 3 kills in that battle in vengeance for his wounded wingman (see my post above for the details of the air battle).

In the actual war (as opposed to my and Apbarog's game), Saburo Sakai was wounded by an allied gunner in a Dauntless SBD. He spotted what he thought were 2 flights of bombers: one a flight of 8 SBDs and the other 3 TBFs. (This was after the fact, however. Initially he thought that all the aircraft were F4Fs). Sakai claims, in his book, that he engaged what he thought were 3 TBFs and claimed to have downed 2 before being wounded. Therefore, he believed that it was a TBF gunner who wounded him, but no TBFs were reported lost that day in allied war logs. Therefore, it must have been an SBD gunner who wounded him, and both flights that he spotted must have been SBDs. He was shot in the head, so it understandable that his memory of the events of that day is not perfect.

Aurorus
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 5:08 pm

RE: Argentina vs. USA: Aurorus (J) vs. Apbarog (A)

Post by Aurorus »

11 June 1942.

The IJA is ashore on Fiji. This is going to be a very hard, long, and costly campaign: hopefully for both the empire and the allies. There are more U.S. troops here that I suspected. I knew that my poor Betty recon was underreporting the strength of the allied presence here, but even with this in mind, I did not expect to find so many allied units.

The night-time hours began with two allied submarine attacks on the TFs approaching Fiji. In both cases the subs were forced to fire on escorts and missed. Then Bunji Asakura on the Haruna did his part, bringing his TF into Suva for an effective bombardment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Suva at 132,160

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 28 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed on ground
P-39D Airacobra: 27 damaged
P-39D Airacobra: 2 destroyed on ground
Vildebeest IV: 2 damaged
Vildebeest IV: 1 destroyed on ground
SBD-3 Dauntless: 9 damaged
SBD-3 Dauntless: 1 destroyed on ground
SB2U-3 Vindicator: 7 damaged
PBY-5 Catalina: 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Haruna
BB Kongo
CA Chokai
CA Atago
CA Takao

Allied ground losses:
251 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 6 destroyed, 31 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 14 (3 destroyed, 11 disabled)
Vehicles lost 7 (2 destroyed, 5 disabled)

Airbase hits 10
Airbase supply hits 6
Runway hits 25
Port hits 1
Port supply hits 1

E8N2 Dave acting as spotter for BB Haruna
BB Haruna firing at Suva
BB Kongo firing at Suva
CA Chokai firing at Suva
CA Atago firing at Suva
CA Takao firing at Suva


This set the stage for the events of the day. Chokai strikes again.
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”