Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

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

Ambassador
Posts: 1756
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Brussels, Belgium

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Ambassador »

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Okay, I understand. You are from Belgium, no need to apologize for your English. Many people whose primary language should be English have trouble with it.

I also understand your movements so there is little on map movement, hence danger.


My carefulness about on-map danger may be tied to the fact my PBEM opponent had conquered Ceylon and the neighboring islands... if NJP went the same route and took Socotra (nothing much to oppose to him that early), this could prevent most of the US supply from arriving to India (a trickle could be sent by the middle of the Indian Ocean, at the risk of interception). Which would render the defense of India more difficult. But for that, he probably should have kept the troops he sent to Australia.
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

Jan 28, 1942

Iboats are a severe threat to larger ships this early.

Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (284.71 KiB) Viewed 345 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

Task Force Lousiville sorties, having patiently waited the entire War for this opportunity.



Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (330.25 KiB) Viewed 345 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

USN planners had predicted this attack...Pago Pago was deemed not defendable early on. The garrison was never reinforced, and only lightly supplied.

The invasion came today.



Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (330.28 KiB) Viewed 345 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

The USN command is disappointed with the sub fleets ability to actually do damage, other than mine drops, but is enthused about the intel provided into routes and tactics the IJN follows.

Pure gold.



Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (91.72 KiB) Viewed 345 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

I wonder how badly the planes suffer operating in these conditions. I also wonder how planes with accumulated fatigue/damage push their attacks or simply drop their fish too soon. The afternoon attack fails also.



Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (175.4 KiB) Viewed 345 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

Still plinking away here...I will take time today to get some better pilots into these squadrons.





Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (116.54 KiB) Viewed 345 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

Allied fighters are doing pretty good work...



Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (90.49 KiB) Viewed 345 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

Showing lots of little ships for Japan to think about. Partly an effort to help the Dewey escape, and also partly an effort to setup more ambushes by the remaining warships.

These Jakes were escorted by Zeroes.

Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (341.33 KiB) Viewed 345 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

Japan should never use AMCs in amphibious operations where there are coastal guns.[;)]

Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (105.71 KiB) Viewed 345 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

After a three day wait, the IJA finally attacks. Guessing the delay was awaiting supplies.



Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (357.57 KiB) Viewed 345 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

I was expecting a shock attack...Japan is changing tactics.

Can we hold? Terrain is woods. No Japanese aerial bombing. The 4th Division is dug in with forts 2, while the 34 Rgt, 11th Bde, 6th Cav has only 1. The rest 0.





Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (363.76 KiB) Viewed 345 times
Ambassador
Posts: 1756
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Brussels, Belgium

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Ambassador »

Good ambush at Tulagi ![&o][&o]

The lack of hits on Louisville by the G4M might be a testament to the loss of pilots since the beginning.[&:]

High altitude air war above Calcutta ? I see the Buffaloes altitude at 30k ft...

And I agree with your assessment of the AMC. I believe the code tries to use them as combat ships, but they’re not solid enough.
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

Just a few points shy of a 1-3 attack...the Allied force inflicts a devastating loss on the IJA.

As the 34th Regiment withdraws from the line the Australians cheer them! The Gallant 34th!



Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (178.79 KiB) Viewed 345 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

Hmm...



Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (155.48 KiB) Viewed 345 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

The South Pacific



Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (400.79 KiB) Viewed 345 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

Crisis at Lashio![X(]



Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (478.96 KiB) Viewed 345 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

More Japanese successes.



Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (275.63 KiB) Viewed 345 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

And, while the Deathstar steams toward Hokkaido, the IJN is gobbling territory in the South Pacifc.

USN Command is only willing to defend New Zealand and Australia...they can go to Tahiti, and in fact are encouraged to do so.



Image

PS: I built VavaVu into a size 2 runway...I had planned on using it for quick air strikes hoping that Japan wouldn't notice the runway increase...but Japan is moving too fast and too strong here.

Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (278.29 KiB) Viewed 345 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

Ambassador,

Japan is going with very high sweeps, and I think that is not in their best interests...would be better off with at least two squadrons sweeping at their max manvr band.

Allies are countering, when we do (which isn't often) with high altitude patrols. The sweep over Brisbane yesterday we had enough radar for a 19 minute warning, here not so good as many Hurricanes were badly out of position.

Afternoon Air attack on Calcutta , at 52,37

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 10 NM, estimated altitude 32,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 14

Allied aircraft
Buffalo I x 9
Hurricane IIb Trop x 12

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 3 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Buffalo I: 1 destroyed

CAP engaged:
No.21 Sqn RAAF with Buffalo I (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 30000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 30000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 3 minutes
No.67 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIb Trop (0 airborne, 2 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 34000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 21 minutes
No.232 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIb Trop (0 airborne, 4 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 34000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 21 minutes
No.232 (P) Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIb Trop (0 airborne, 3 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 34000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 21 minutes
No.453 Sqn RAF with Buffalo I (0 airborne, 4 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 30000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 19 minutes
No.488 Sqn RAF with Buffalo I (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 30000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 30000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 4 minutes

The Brisbane fight from the previous day:

Morning Air attack on Brisbane , at 96,160

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 59 NM, estimated altitude 32,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 19 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 12

Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 14

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 2 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
7 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 31000 feet *

CAP engaged:
17th PS (P) with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 3 on standby, 6 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 38 minutes
33rd PS (P) with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 3 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 21 minutes
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”