RADM Yamaguchi's Diary (Pls no affins or cheesesteak)

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

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

User avatar
RADM.Yamaguchi
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:09 pm

RE: D4Y1-C Judy vs. J1N1-C Irving?

Post by RADM.Yamaguchi »

Lowpe and Pax thanks for the help. Joe maybe i can end up helping you with something someday if i'm getting farther than you.

i was thinking of taking a size 9 Judy recon and splitting it with 3 on 3 different carriers? or should i keep them all on one?
User avatar
RADM.Yamaguchi
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:09 pm

10-29-42 Adak Free! Bad weather everywhere

Post by RADM.Yamaguchi »

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Oct 29, 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Port Hedland at 57,129

Japanese Ships
CL Yubari
CL Kinu
CL Isuzu
CL Nagara
DD Karii
DD Numakaze
DD Namikaze
DD Shiokaze
DD Hakaze
DD Okikaze
DD Minekaze
DD Fumizuki
DD Minazuki
DD Uzuki
DD Yayoi
DD Kisaragi

CL Yubari firing at 8th Australian Division
E13A1 Jake acting as spotter for CL Kinu
CL Kinu firing at 8th Australian Division
CL Isuzu firing at 8th Australian Division
CL Nagara firing at 8th Australian Division
DD Karii firing at 8th Australian Division
DD Numakaze firing at 8th Australian Division
DD Namikaze firing at 8th Australian Division
DD Shiokaze firing at Port Hedland
DD Hakaze firing at 8th Australian Division
DD Okikaze firing at 8th Australian Division
DD Minekaze firing at Port Hedland
DD Fumizuki firing at 8th Australian Division
DD Minazuki firing at 8th Australian Division
DD Uzuki firing at 8th Australian Division
DD Yayoi firing at 8th Australian Division
DD Kisaragi firing at 8th Australian Division


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Adak Island at 162,52

Japanese Ships
CA Kako
CA Kinugasa
CA Aoba
CL Kitakami
DD Shirayuki
DD Shinonome
DD Fubuki
DD Inazuma

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

CA Kako firing at 41st Infantry Division
E13A1 Jake acting as spotter for CA Kinugasa
CA Kinugasa firing at 41st Infantry Division
CA Aoba firing at 41st Infantry Division
CL Kitakami firing at 41st Infantry Division
DD Shirayuki firing at 41st Infantry Division
DD Shinonome firing at 41st Infantry Division
DD Fubuki firing at 41st Infantry Division
DD Inazuma firing at 41st Infantry Division


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 41st Infantry Division, at 162,52 (Adak Island)

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 9 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Japanese aircraft
B5N1 Kate x 66

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N1 Kate: 3 damaged

Allied ground losses:
81 casualties reported
Squads: 10 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 7 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
66 x B5N1 Kate bombing from 10000 feet
Ground Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Adak Island (162,52)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 47886 troops, 495 guns, 29 vehicles, Assault Value = 1149

Defending force 6697 troops, 179 guns, 261 vehicles, Assault Value = 6

Japanese adjusted assault: 1095

Allied adjusted defense: 5

Japanese assault odds: 219 to 1

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

Japanese ground losses:
50 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Allied ground losses:
4209 casualties reported
Squads: 251 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 448 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 31 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 195 (195 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Vehicles lost 354 (354 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units destroyed 2

Assaulting units:
27th Electric Engineer Regiment
302nd Ind.Infantry Battalion
Guards Mixed Brigade
52nd Division
7th Division
303rd Ind.Infantry Battalion
54th Division
53rd Division
Ichiki Det.
31st Air Defense AA Regiment
1st Air Army
5th Fleet
9th Ind. Engineer Regiment
16th JNAF AF Unit
51st Base Force

Defending units:
41st Infantry Division
87th Mountain Regiment
Adak is free! Bad weather everywhere! this is the combat report! Nothing flying anywhere! No sub activity? Probably too many clouds or high winds underwater too. Swift currents.
User avatar
RADM.Yamaguchi
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:09 pm

Bombardment TF Cloaking

Post by RADM.Yamaguchi »

I would like to see if I could possible delay/prevent discovery of BB TFs. If I were to replace most of the float planes of my BB TF with Rufes set to 100% CAP and also fly a squadron or two of zeros on LRCAP over my BB TF as it sets up for it's run 9 hexes away from it's destination do you think i could disturb the Nav Search enough that my BB TF is not discovered? What altitude(s) should i choose?
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 18284
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: Bombardment TF Cloaking

Post by RangerJoe »

If the enemy search plane gets shot down over a hex without an actual spotting report, then you would know that something is there but a person may not know what it is.

A 6,000 altitude should be best for searching, if you set a CAP at that height is on the same level and it is perfect for intercepting torpedo bombers dropping to torpedo launch height. That is also a good place for Claudes if you have to use them.
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
inqistor
Posts: 1813
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 1:19 pm

RE: 10-27-42

Post by inqistor »

ORIGINAL: RADM.Yamaguchi

i don't talk about strategy much here but my thinking on N. Australia is as follows:

they've landed a division, tank rgt?, art rgt?, AA btn?, and base forces at port hedland and managed to get it to a size 2 af.

my plan is to base AV, Mavis squadron, 2 Nell squadrons, 1 upsize Zero squadron with an Air HQ, JAAF BF, Base Force, 2 INF Rgts and AA at Broome (AF4,Pt2) which is 6 hexes away.

that should make any supply/reinforcement convoys w/o significant fighter coverage vulnerable.

To support that base i plan on basing 1 recon squadron, 2 sally squadrons, 2 Oscar Squadrons at Derby (AF3/4) to bomb the airfield and stop/retard development.

if successful and after reducing supplies i have 2 divisions ready to invade. i just don't know if i should bother to invade or just leave them there in the hope that the allies will continue to resupply/reinforce and get chewed up for a while.

any thoughts? it seemed to work on a larger scale at Adak
If it is unrestricted Division there, go and destroy it. Northern Australia is not worth effort, because Allies can use restricted Australian units to reconquer it, so only temporary delay for DEI invasion jump point. Allies replacement rate is quite limited.
Don't underestimate those islands SE of Java. There is huge blind gap there, which you have to cover.

Here:
Allied ground losses:
4209 casualties reported
Squads: 251 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 448 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 31 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 195 (195 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Vehicles lost 354 (354 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units destroyed 2

You just destroyed 4 months worth of squads replacement. And probably even more artillery. Good job!
User avatar
RADM.Yamaguchi
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:09 pm

RE: 10-27-42

Post by RADM.Yamaguchi »

ORIGINAL: inqistor
If it is unrestricted Division there, go and destroy it. Northern Australia is not worth effort, because Allies can use restricted Australian units to reconquer it, so only temporary delay for DEI invasion jump point. Allies replacement rate is quite limited.
Don't underestimate those islands SE of Java. There is huge blind gap there, which you have to cover.
Hey Inquistor. Thanks for the analysis. I do these things and don't really understand the long term ramifications when i do them. Since this 8th Division has been around and it got to Port Hedland via ship it must be unrestricted? Yes?. So i will make plans to make their little vacation to the north miserable if i can.
User avatar
RADM.Yamaguchi
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:09 pm

10-30-42

Post by RADM.Yamaguchi »

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Oct 30, 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Torres Islands at 120,146

Japanese Ships
DD Sagiri

Allied Ships
SS Finback

SS Finback launches 4 torpedoes at DD Sagiri
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Torres Islands at 120,146

Japanese Ships
AG Irako, Torpedo hits 1
DD Sagiri

Allied Ships
SS Finback

SS Finback launches 2 torpedoes at AG Irako
Dang, that's one of those big AGs. I didn't realize that i probably should convert it to an AKE for the big guys. Was sending it back to the HI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Broome at 62,127

Japanese Ships
SC Ch 27
AO Tsurumi
AO Shiretoko
AO Ondo

Allied Ships
SS S-38

Captain of SS S-38 elects not to launch torpedoes at this target
I think somebody needs to get a hold of that sub captain and set him wise. I'm going to try to never give one an opportunity like that again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Chungking , at 76,45

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 39 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 41
Ki-49-Ia Helen x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 13 damaged
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 1 destroyed by flak

Heavy Industry hits 19
i guess i should fly a little higher maybe. Still gonna take one more day
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at 75,53 (near Kweilin)

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 61880 troops, 609 guns, 226 vehicles, Assault Value = 2332

Defending force 33056 troops, 207 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1124

Japanese adjusted assault: 1767

Allied adjusted defense: 1611

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
5011 casualties reported
Squads: 4 destroyed, 371 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 35 disabled
Engineers: 6 destroyed, 161 disabled

Allied ground losses:
2922 casualties reported
Squads: 37 destroyed, 132 disabled
Non Combat: 149 destroyed, 41 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Guns lost 39 (26 destroyed, 13 disabled)
Units destroyed 1

Assaulting units:
17th Division
3rd Ind. Engineer Regiment
70th Division
4th Ind. Engineer Regiment
22nd Division
116th Division
15th Division
104th Division
15th Ind. Engineer Regiment
21st Mortar Battalion
23rd Army
1st Art.Mortar Regiment
4th Mortar Battalion
13th Army
9th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion

Defending units:
31st Chinese Corps
48th Chinese Corps
74th Chinese Corps
46th Chinese Corps
62nd Chinese Corps
2nd Prov Chinese Corps
2nd Chinese Base Force
16th Group Army
7th Chinese Base Force
These are those retreating units i beat up in Kweilin. I thought they would be weaker. Guess my troops are a little tired.

My bombardment TF for Port Hedland didn't go. I'll have to double check on it.
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 18284
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: 10-30-42

Post by RangerJoe »

Why are you shock attacking stronger Chinese units? Especially if you troops are tired and the enemy has had a chance to repair and resupply? Surround them and let them wither, if at all possible. If you have to punch through, air and artillery bombard for a few days first. Always keep bombing enemy units to keep up their fatigue and disruption, the enemy had no maluses (-) for those.
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
RADM.Yamaguchi
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:09 pm

RE: 10-30-42

Post by RADM.Yamaguchi »

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Why are you shock attacking stronger Chinese units? Especially if you troops are tired and the enemy has had a chance to repair and resupply? Surround them and let them wither, if at all possible. If you have to punch through, air and artillery bombard for a few days first. Always keep bombing enemy units to keep up their fatigue and disruption, the enemy had no maluses (-) for those.
thanks joe. I hope you are not keeping track of how many times you have told me that. I'm obviously a slow learner.
User avatar
RADM.Yamaguchi
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:09 pm

How many TK sinking is significant

Post by RADM.Yamaguchi »

This does not have to do with this PBEM game but my other PBEM game.

it is June 1942 and through a series of unfortunate mistakes by my opponent and some dumb luck on my part i have managed to sink 25 TKs(14 British, 4 Commonwealth, 1 Dutch, 6 U.S) and 4 AOs. Is this significant in any strategic way? I think most of them were loaded with fuel/oil on their way from India to Australia?
User avatar
RADM.Yamaguchi
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:09 pm

10-31-42

Post by RADM.Yamaguchi »

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Oct 31, 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Broome at 62,127

Japanese Ships
AO Kyuko, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
AO Shiretoko
AO Ondo
SC Ch 27

Allied Ships
SS S-38

SS S-38 launches 4 torpedoes at AO Kyuko
Dang i thought i had gotten them out of the way but forgot to stop unloading first.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Broome at 62,127

Japanese Ships
DD Yayoi
CL Yubari
CL Kinu
DD Okikaze
DD Minekaze
DD Fumizuki
DD Minazuki
DD Kisaragi
DD Numakaze
DD Namikaze
DD Shiokaze
DD Hakaze

Allied Ships
SS S-38

SS S-38 launches 2 torpedoes at DD Yayoi
these guys are worthless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Pukapuka at 156,159

Japanese Ships
SS I-10

Allied Ships
CLAA San Diego
xAK Fusto Arosemena
xAK Sea Fox
SC-701

SS I-10 launches 6 torpedoes at CLAA San Diego
what the heck! 6 torpedoes and nothing! And it's in a slow convoy!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at 85,43 (near Nanyang)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 2595 troops, 0 guns, 389 vehicles, Assault Value = 237

Defending force 9812 troops, 37 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 388

Japanese adjusted assault: 136

Allied adjusted defense: 262

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(-), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Allied ground losses:
254 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 29 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Assaulting units:
9th Tank Regiment
17th Tank Regiment
2nd Tank Regiment
8th Armored Car Co
19th Tank Regiment

Defending units:
76th Chinese Corps
I'd like to get this unit out of the way on the road to SIAN.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Ontong Java (115,131)

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 165 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1

Defending force 0 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 0

Japanese adjusted assault: 2

Allied adjusted defense: 1

Japanese assault odds: 2 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Ontong Java !!!

Combat modifiers
Attacker: shock(+), leaders(+), leaders(-)

Assaulting units:
86th Nav Gd /6
Okay Joe. I didn't call for a shock attack here. I just landed these guys on an undefended dot hex and they decided to shock attack nothing
User avatar
Q-Ball
Posts: 7401
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:43 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

RE: 10-31-42

Post by Q-Ball »

What's your situation in China? Can you post a map? Curious what kind of progress you are making (or not making) here
User avatar
RADM.Yamaguchi
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:09 pm

China

Post by RADM.Yamaguchi »

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

What's your situation in China? Can you post a map? Curious what kind of progress you are making (or not making) here
I can't tell you how much i appreciate all the help you guys have been giving me!

i think i got a very late start in china because i didn't know what to do.

Image
Attachments
china.jpg
china.jpg (799.9 KiB) Viewed 281 times
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 18284
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: How many TK sinking is significant

Post by RangerJoe »

ORIGINAL: RADM.Yamaguchi

This does not have to do with this PBEM game but my other PBEM game.

it is June 1942 and through a series of unfortunate mistakes by my opponent and some dumb luck on my part i have managed to sink 25 TKs(14 British, 4 Commonwealth, 1 Dutch, 6 U.S) and 4 AOs. Is this significant in any strategic way? I think most of them were loaded with fuel/oil on their way from India to Australia?

Yes it is significant. Keep killing them, the Allies barely have enough tankers. They can use cargoes for fuel but it is no efficient and slows down the supply build up. If you are also sinking lots of cargo ships as well, then keep it up.
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
RangerJoe
Posts: 18284
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: How many TK sinking is significant

Post by RangerJoe »

For China, first make sure that all of the VPs are garrisoned. Then target all production centers for capture. Also bomb the one port the Chinese have along the coast to get port fuel hits. Make sure, if playing a person, that all of your production centers are protected by CAP. You don't want to waste supply rebuilding Chinese production. Try not to destroy units, just surround them, and keep them isolated. At least until you take the two Chinese cities where the destroyed units return. Also, if the enemy lets you close the Burma Road, do so even if it sacrifices a bunch of paratroopers.
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
Q-Ball
Posts: 7401
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:43 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

RE: How many TK sinking is significant

Post by Q-Ball »

On China, you are not in terrible shape, but just looking at the map it doesn't look like you're on a pathway to wiping out China. That's OK, you can still do some damage. Clearing the Changsha area is good.

You should prioritize a push on Sian. It's important, also because you need to get to Lanchow to stop the flow of Fuel to the HI in China. If you take Lanchow, you don't really need to even bomb the HI; lack of fuel will turn it off. He's on good terrain, so you'll need tanks and artillery to break through, and you'll probably need to rotate units.

Do you have a HR on Strat bombing in China? If not, you should go ahead and bomb all the HI and LI, stop supply production

Also, I agree with Ranger Joe on the TK/AOs; the Allies can absorb some losses, but you can constrain movements. As far as xAKs, points are good, but strategically you can't sink enough to really dent the Allied war effort....they get soooo many
User avatar
RADM.Yamaguchi
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:09 pm

RE: How many TK sinking is significant

Post by RADM.Yamaguchi »

Hi Q-ball thanks for looking it over. I've had the burma road closed since jan 42. Ledo was flying in some supplies but i destroyed the refinery there and closed the airfield. I destroyed the refinery at Lanchow a couple months ago. I have destroyed almost all HI in china except i can't reach Chengtu. The LI seems harder to destroy. I have all my Heavy Art (20 units), armor (24 units) and Eng units with Assault value and engineer squads (10 units) along with the 11th army, north china army, 1st army, 12th army (24 Divs) all converging on Sian within 7 hexes. I don't know what else i can do.
User avatar
RADM.Yamaguchi
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:09 pm

11-1-42

Post by RADM.Yamaguchi »

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Nov 01, 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Port Hedland at 57,129, Range 10,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CL Nagara, Shell hits 1
DD Kisaragi
DD Yayoi
DD Uzuki
DD Minazuki
DD Fumizuki

Allied Ships
AMc Bonthorpe, Shell hits 9, and is sunk
AMc Olive Cam, Shell hits 8, and is sunk
AMc Alor, Shell hits 4, and is sunk
AMc Bantam, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
didn't expect AMcs there?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Port Hedland at 57,129

Japanese Ships
CL Nagara
DD Uzuki
DD Kisaragi
DD Fumizuki
DD Minazuki

Allied Ships
SS KXIII, hits 3
That's cool, i think that sub was waiting for a bombardment TF and they got the better of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Broome at 62,127

Japanese Ships
SC Ch 26
AO Shiretoko
AO Ondo
SC Ch 27

Allied Ships
SS S-38, hits 14, heavy damage
Got back at that sub for the AO they sunk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Port Hedland at 57,129

Japanese Ships
CL Nagara
DD Fumizuki
DD Minazuki
DD Uzuki
DD Yayoi
DD Kisaragi

Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 4
Port supply hits 1
I'll try to keep it damaged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Port Hedland at 57,129

Japanese Ships
CL Kinu
CL Isuzu
DD Numakaze
DD Namikaze
DD Shiokaze
DD Hakaze
DD Okikaze
DD Minekaze

Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 5
Port hits 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Broome at 61,127

Japanese Ships
CL Kinu
DD Hakaze
DD Okikaze
DD Numakaze
DD Namikaze
DD Shiokaze

Allied Ships
SS S-38, hits 1, heavy damage
sub made it one hex and got hit again
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at 85,43 (near Nanyang)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 2708 troops, 0 guns, 420 vehicles, Assault Value = 219

Defending force 9593 troops, 37 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 363

Japanese adjusted assault: 102

Allied adjusted defense: 355

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 3

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(+), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Allied ground losses:
284 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 26 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Assaulting units:
17th Tank Regiment
8th Armored Car Co
2nd Tank Regiment
9th Tank Regiment
19th Tank Regiment

Defending units:
76th Chinese Corps
like to keep those tanks busy in china. Not the best terrain
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 18284
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: How many TK sinking is significant

Post by RangerJoe »

He is bombing the production. By sinking both the tankers and the cargo vessels that could also carry fuel, he is constraining them somewhat now. While the Allies do get lots of them later with plenty of xAKs to spare, if they are hauling fuel then they are not hauling other important items.
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
RADM.Yamaguchi
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:09 pm

Prosecuting Sub Contacts

Post by RADM.Yamaguchi »

I've been having some luck switching Nells, Kates and Val squadrons to ASW. They don't have much experience and no training for ASW to speak of yet but they seem to be getting a little bit done.

Image
Attachments
Subs.jpg
Subs.jpg (75.38 KiB) Viewed 281 times
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”