Getting Bottlenecked: SierraJuliet (J) vs Mundy (A)

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

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

User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20742
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: Getting Bottlenecked: SierraJuliet (J) vs Mundy (A)

Post by BBfanboy »

If he has enough supply he can spawn mini-subs there in groups of four or six (can't recall the batch size). There is a chance the subs you haven't engaged yet are mini-subs which are easy to kill in shallow waters, but once in a while they get lucky and find a willing recipient for their torpedo. [;)]
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
RangerJoe
Posts: 19687
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: Getting Bottlenecked: SierraJuliet (J) vs Mundy (A)

Post by RangerJoe »

You get mini-subs in batches of four.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

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

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


Image
User avatar
Bif1961
Posts: 2014
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:52 pm
Location: Phenix City, Alabama

RE: Getting Bottlenecked: SierraJuliet (J) vs Mundy (A)

Post by Bif1961 »

As you near the Island are you going to switch the float planes from the ships to be used for bombardment over to night recon of Wake?
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 19687
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: Getting Bottlenecked: SierraJuliet (J) vs Mundy (A)

Post by RangerJoe »

You can switch the planes over before you get into range. Just one will do for the entire fleet. Try to make sure that it is on the first ship bombarding otherwise it does not seem to work the best.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

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

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


Image
User avatar
Mundy
Posts: 2874
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 6:12 am
Location: Neenah

RE: Getting Bottlenecked: SierraJuliet (J) vs Mundy (A)

Post by Mundy »

ORIGINAL: Bif1961

As you near the Island are you going to switch the float planes from the ships to be used for bombardment over to night recon of Wake?

I don't use bombardment groups for invasions. Embedding BBs with the transports always seems to deal out more hurt that way. When bombarding, I do always use FP recon.

06 Jan 1943

I think Steve saw the writing on the wall and withdrew his search planes from Wake, as now all my TFs are unspotted. They've been moving faster than expected, so landings will start tomorrow. I'll be sending the rest to Marcus soon, once Wake is fairly secure. I still want air cover for that part.

He probably won't expect that part. I'm putting plenty of planes on both these islands. My path to the Marianas should be more clear after this.

I'm still watching the south, as I'm uncertain if his carriers from the Solomons will challenge this.
Image
User avatar
Mundy
Posts: 2874
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 6:12 am
Location: Neenah

RE: Getting Bottlenecked: SierraJuliet (J) vs Mundy (A)

Post by Mundy »

07 Jan 1943

Landings.

A bit bloody all around, but I should prevail.
Pre-Invasion action off Wake Island (136,98)
Defensive Guns engage approaching landing force

56 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
BB Resolution~
BB Ramillies~
BB Royal Sovereign~
BB Idaho
BB Nevada
BB Colorado
BB Maryland
CA New Orleans
CA Salt Lake City
CA Pensacola
CA Houston
DD Balch
DD Jarvis
DD Mugford
DD Helm
AP Ernest Hinds~+

Japanese ground losses:
1019 casualties reported
Squads: 4 destroyed, 31 disabled
Non Combat: 19 destroyed, 50 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 2 disabled
Guns lost 37 (15 destroyed, 22 disabled)
Vehicles lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)

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

BB Resolution~ firing at Wake Coastal Gun Battalion
BB Ramillies~ firing at Wake Coastal Gun Battalion
BB Royal Sovereign~ firing at Maizuru 2nd SNLF
BB Idaho firing at Maizuru 2nd SNLF
BB Nevada firing at 44th Naval Guard Unit
BB Colorado firing at Maizuru 2nd SNLF
BB Maryland firing at 44th Naval Guard Unit
CA New Orleans firing at 34th JNAF AF Unit
CA Salt Lake City firing at Maizuru 2nd SNLF
CA Pensacola firing at 44th Naval Guard Unit
CA Houston firing at Maizuru 2nd SNLF
DD Balch firing at Maizuru 2nd SNLF
DD Jarvis firing at Maizuru 2nd SNLF
DD Mugford firing at Maizuru 2nd SNLF
DD Helm firing at Maizuru 2nd SNLF
DD Balch fired at enemy troops
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 4,000 yards
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 2,000 yards
Amphibious Assault at Wake Island (136,98)

TF 344 troops unloading over beach at Wake Island, 136,98

Allied ground losses:
1617 casualties reported
Squads: 4 destroyed, 167 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 85 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 41 (0 destroyed, 41 disabled)
Vehicles lost 22 (0 destroyed, 22 disabled)

10 Support troops lost in surf during unload of 24th Infantry Div /2
10 Support troops lost from landing craft during unload of 24th Infantry Div /3
18 troops of a USMC Const Eng Sq lost in surf during unload of 3rd Marine Div /2
12 troops of a M1917 MMG Section lost in surf during unload of 3rd Marine Div /4
12 troops of a USMC Rifle Squad 43 lost in surf during unload of 3rd Marine Div /6
Ground combat at Wake Island (136,98)

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 13051 troops, 309 guns, 139 vehicles, Assault Value = 717

Defending force 3985 troops, 63 guns, 1 vehicles, Assault Value = 100

Allied adjusted assault: 42

Japanese adjusted defense: 8

Allied assault odds: 5 to 1 (fort level 4)

Allied Assault reduces fortifications to 0

Combat modifiers
Defender: forts(+), disruption(-), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker: shock(+), leaders(-), disruption(-), supply(-)

Japanese ground losses:
1976 casualties reported
Squads: 72 destroyed, 37 disabled
Non Combat: 13 destroyed, 78 disabled
Engineers: 10 destroyed, 5 disabled
Guns lost 26 (18 destroyed, 8 disabled)
Vehicles lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
3180 casualties reported
Squads: 87 destroyed, 96 disabled
Non Combat: 10 destroyed, 7 disabled
Engineers: 36 destroyed, 5 disabled
Guns lost 44 (30 destroyed, 14 disabled)
Vehicles lost 14 (10 destroyed, 4 disabled)

Assaulting units:
24th Infantry Div /11
102nd Cmbt Engineer Regiment
3rd Marine Div /11

Defending units:
Maizuru 2nd SNLF
44th Naval Guard Unit
46th JNAF AF Unit
34th JNAF AF Unit
Wake Cst Gun Bn /3

One AP carrying the Wake support follow-on forces took a sub torp, but should survive. Glad it wasn't the Marcus group.

I'm sending the Marcus invaders onwards. Search planes in the Marshalls are covering everything south of Wake.

When this is all finished, I'm toying with the idea of sending all the battleships to bombard Truk. Be about a dozen BBs involved.
Image
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20742
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: Getting Bottlenecked: SierraJuliet (J) vs Mundy (A)

Post by BBfanboy »

Truk has a nasty naval fort and lots of mines. Don't set your bombardment to "Escorts bombard" or the coastal/DP batteries will inflict lots of damage on your ships. With just the BBs bombarding the 15,000 yard minimum range should avoid most hits from the coastal defences.
Embed lots of DMS in the bombardment TF.
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
Mundy
Posts: 2874
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 6:12 am
Location: Neenah

RE: Getting Bottlenecked: SierraJuliet (J) vs Mundy (A)

Post by Mundy »

Thanks, I'll bear that in mind.

I tried invading Truk against KenchiSulla and that turned into a disaster. I have no intention of trying that again.
Image
User avatar
Bif1961
Posts: 2014
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:52 pm
Location: Phenix City, Alabama

RE: Getting Bottlenecked: SierraJuliet (J) vs Mundy (A)

Post by Bif1961 »

He lost around 3,000 and you almost 5,000 I would say it was a bloody but successful landing I guess it couldn't be avioded. Did you land only after an afternoon landing instead of a morning landing?
User avatar
Mundy
Posts: 2874
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 6:12 am
Location: Neenah

RE: Getting Bottlenecked: SierraJuliet (J) vs Mundy (A)

Post by Mundy »

Yeah, I think it was a later day landing.
Image
User avatar
Mundy
Posts: 2874
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 6:12 am
Location: Neenah

RE: Getting Bottlenecked: SierraJuliet (J) vs Mundy (A)

Post by Mundy »

For those of you following Steve's side of the AAR. After being AWOL, I got an email.

He had a nasty storm whip through his area which killed his power and internet. He won't really be ready again until the 27th.
Image
User avatar
LargeSlowTarget
Posts: 5079
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France

RE: Getting Bottlenecked: SierraJuliet (J) vs Mundy (A)

Post by LargeSlowTarget »

ORIGINAL: Mundy

07 Jan 1943

Landings.

A bit bloody all around, but I should prevail.

No "The issue is in doubt" message from the beach?
User avatar
Mundy
Posts: 2874
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 6:12 am
Location: Neenah

RE: Getting Bottlenecked: SierraJuliet (J) vs Mundy (A)

Post by Mundy »

Not yet.

[;)]
Image
User avatar
Mundy
Posts: 2874
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 6:12 am
Location: Neenah

RE: Getting Bottlenecked: SierraJuliet (J) vs Mundy (A)

Post by Mundy »

08 Jan 1943

Wake falls without a fuss. Dropping two divisions seems to help. I'll get the troops out after all the supplies get unloaded. Follow-on support forces and aircraft will land next turn. He's made very little effort to develop this island, with port and airfield still at 1 each. The Marcus invaders are 7 hexes NNE of Wake and are unspotted. He may not have search planes at Marcus. No mini subs at Wake. They all look to be real subs. I beat one up a bit, inflicting 7 "soft" hits on it.
Ground combat at Wake Island (136,98)

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 17134 troops, 364 guns, 130 vehicles, Assault Value = 545

Defending force 2533 troops, 29 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 12

Allied adjusted assault: 248

Japanese adjusted defense: 2

Allied assault odds: 124 to 1 (fort level 0)

Allied forces CAPTURE Wake Island !!!

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

Japanese ground losses:
1698 casualties reported
Squads: 79 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 268 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 10 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 35 (35 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units destroyed 5

Allied ground losses:
179 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 8 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 3 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 3 (2 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Assaulting units:
24th Infantry Division
3rd Marine Division
102nd Cmbt Engineer Regiment

Defending units:
44th Naval Guard Unit
34th JNAF AF Unit
46th JNAF AF Unit
Maizuru 2nd SNLF
Wake Cst Gun Bn /3

My base force at Coal Harbor completed its overland trek to Victoria. I just left that base, as Coal Harbor seems to be the biggest supply sink in the game and I'm tired of shipping supply there all the time.
Image
User avatar
Mundy
Posts: 2874
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 6:12 am
Location: Neenah

RE: Getting Bottlenecked: SierraJuliet (J) vs Mundy (A)

Post by Mundy »

09 Jan 1943

Pushed my luck keeping my carriers near Wake. Hornet ate a sub torpedo. flt is around 40-ish. She's enroute to Pearl. It wouldn't surprise me if she's out until the Essexes show up.

Marcus troops should arrive in 4 days. They're unseen, so he has no idea what's about to hit.

Lots more amphib ships enroute to Pearl. It'll make the Marianas easier.
Image
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20742
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: Getting Bottlenecked: SierraJuliet (J) vs Mundy (A)

Post by BBfanboy »

What amphib ships are you referring to? I thought there were no APAs/AKAs until after the March 1943 upgrades?
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
Mundy
Posts: 2874
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 6:12 am
Location: Neenah

RE: Getting Bottlenecked: SierraJuliet (J) vs Mundy (A)

Post by Mundy »

Things like LSTs and LCIs. I do consider regular APs and AKs "Assault Transports" unlike the ones with "x" in front of them.
Image
User avatar
Mundy
Posts: 2874
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 6:12 am
Location: Neenah

RE: Getting Bottlenecked: SierraJuliet (J) vs Mundy (A)

Post by Mundy »

10 January 1943

Things moving along. Marcus invaders still unseen. I think he'll have no clue what's happening until it happens.

Unloading is slow at Wake, being a level 1 port. I'm not sure if the aircraft I'm shipping over will be able to unload at all.

I sank one mini-sub at Wake. The only one I've seen so far. Hornet is clear of the area and still can make 17 kts. She has 15 sys and 44 flt. This will probably take awhile to fix.

I've left the CVE group with the ships unloading at Wake. The fleet CVs are moving towards Marcus. I'm hoping I catch some of his shipping in the area.
Image
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20742
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: Getting Bottlenecked: SierraJuliet (J) vs Mundy (A)

Post by BBfanboy »

If the Air Transport TF ships cannot individually dock at Wake, you should be able to off-load them at Midway or Johnson Is. and fly them in.
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
Mundy
Posts: 2874
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 6:12 am
Location: Neenah

RE: Getting Bottlenecked: SierraJuliet (J) vs Mundy (A)

Post by Mundy »

Yeah, or maybe Eniwetonk.
Image
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”