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

User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Troops in good condition...fatigue less than 14 most under 10, disruption under 10...12 155mm Howitzers and 15 6" coastal guns arrived today, tomorrow we get 60+ Lee/Grants and more CD guns...will attack then after a set of daily bombardments from Marysborough.

Looking good, I expect Bundaberg will fall with the next attack...base is damaged so no more fort building.



Image

Rails cut from Rockhamtpon once again, 50K IJA troopers in Rockhampton.[:)]

Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (331.48 KiB) Viewed 426 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

A look at those Banshee pilots!



Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (307.62 KiB) Viewed 426 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Destroyer Hull made the run from Marysborough to Brisbane and managed to put out 56 points of fire damage while incurring 4 system, 2 float, 1 engine point...barring bombers she will live to fight again.



Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (99.66 KiB) Viewed 426 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Solid experience gains for the fleet off Australia...



Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (104.25 KiB) Viewed 426 times
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20416
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

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

Post by BBfanboy »

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I am officially baffled by the IJN moves...[&:]
I'd say he is mad at the loss of all those IJ ships off NE Australia, so he is trying to get back some respect by going all in to sink your pesky ships off India. Don't know why he had all those heavies hanging out in that area unless he thought he could trap a bunch of the Allied fleet there.
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
JohnDillworth
Posts: 3104
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:22 pm

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

Post by JohnDillworth »

Foxes got into the hen-house. He can either bring more to evacuate, bring more to fight on the ground, or leave his guys there to die. I didn't see any troops listed as lost so I'm not sure if that transport force was coming or going. Not good either way. You opponent is in a spot here. The Japanese call those Brooklyn Class CL's "machine gun cruisers". 15 x 6" guns with a crazy rate of fire. As long as the don't eat a torpedo they are a match for the IJN CA's. They throw about twice as much shell weight per minute as a Mogami class CA. Well done turn there.
Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly
User avatar
Encircled
Posts: 2097
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 3:50 pm
Location: Northern England

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

Post by Encircled »

I can't believe he's done all that without committing the KB

User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Turn is away...bombarding Bundaberg with 3 task forces Chin, Brooklyn and Helena...Iboats in the area.

Stood down most air in Australia except fighter coverage over Marysborough and search...

Hid in port along the Indian coast...diverting troops in case Japan is looking to invade to grab a base...I suspect some of the coastal ports will be bombarded so we diverted planes too.

Fiddled with sub patrols

Sub pickets are moving into position for the Canton Island and Baker operations...

Converted some YP to ACM, two more AKVs...

Upgraded a squadron at Pearl from P40B to E, to get some more Bs in the pools to feed our sweeper squadron in Australia.

I am so confused at what Japan is doing in India, that simply pulled our horns in for the day to allow more base building and troop transport and air training...although I have sent two light cruisers to raid his ship supply line between Sumatra and Ceylon. They are undetected so far...

User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

ORIGINAL: Encircled

I can't believe he's done all that without committing the KB


He did commit the KB and they got a bloody nose over Brisbane...


User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I am officially baffled by the IJN moves...[&:]
I'd say he is mad at the loss of all those IJ ships off NE Australia, so he is trying to get back some respect by going all in to sink your pesky ships off India. Don't know why he had all those heavies hanging out in that area unless he thought he could trap a bunch of the Allied fleet there.

You think? That is a lack of strategic thought. I think he might be thinking about grabbing a port base from which he can eventually sink the two R class battleships at Cochin...
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

May 5th, 1942

A torpedo works...



Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (320.89 KiB) Viewed 426 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Glory, glory....we had hit the Furutaka pretty hard at the fight the other day...



Image
Attachments
admiral.jpg
admiral.jpg (298.57 KiB) Viewed 426 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Look who shows up![:)] Dropping 60kg GP bombs.[;)]

Two IJN motor boats tussle with a SAG twice...slowing it down after the three SAGs bombard Bundaberg, just enough they don't make it back to Marysborough and protective CAP.

Two hits, both bounce on the armor...

Image
Attachments
animatedarmorimage.jpg
animatedarmorimage.jpg (371.39 KiB) Viewed 426 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Weather hides us from the divebombers, and helps prevent the torpedo bombers from scoring any hits...less than ideal approach altitude helped too.

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Fraser Island at 97,156

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid detected at 64 NM, estimated altitude 6,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 27 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 36
B5N2 Kate x 20

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N2 Kate: 8 damaged
B5N2 Kate: 1 destroyed by flak

Allied Ships
CL Honolulu
CL Phoenix
DD Selfridge
DD Henley

Aircraft Attacking:
19 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 45cm Type 91 Torp
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Another attack on the Ankang road...[X(] Help is on the way...can it get there in time?


Ground combat at 83,45 (near Nanyang)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 28285 troops, 281 guns, 462 vehicles, Assault Value = 814

Defending force 21743 troops, 120 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 475

Japanese adjusted assault: 384

Allied adjusted defense: 1243

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 3

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

Japanese ground losses:
715 casualties reported
Squads: 4 destroyed, 47 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 21 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Vehicles lost 41 (4 destroyed, 37 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
701 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 87 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 14 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled

Assaulting units:
5th Tank Regiment
116th Division
15th Division
9th Tank Regiment
3rd Tank Regiment
13th Tank Regiment
23rd Tank Regiment
10th Tank Regiment
11th Tank Regiment
13th Army
51st Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion
11th Field Artillery Regiment

Defending units:
41st Chinese Corps
55th Chinese Corps
77th Chinese Corps
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Bombardments at Bundaberg:

Night Naval bombardment of Bundaberg at 96,155

Allied Ships
CL Helena
CL St. Louis
DD Monaghan
DD Aylwin

Japanese ground losses:
96 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

SOC-1 Seagull acting as spotter for CL Helena
CL Helena firing at 33rd Division
CL St. Louis firing at 33rd Division
DD Monaghan firing at 33rd Division
DD Aylwin firing at 33rd Division


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Bundaberg at 96,155

Allied Ships
CL Phoenix
CL Honolulu
DD Selfridge
DD Patterson
DD Henley
DD Bagley

Japanese ground losses:
119 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 5 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Resources hits 1
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 2
Port hits 1

CL Phoenix firing at 33rd Division
CL Honolulu firing at 33rd Division
DD Selfridge firing at 33rd Division
DD Patterson firing at Bundaberg
DD Henley firing at 33rd Division
DD Bagley firing at 1st Medium Field Artillery Regiment


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Bundaberg at 96,155

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 1 damaged
L3Y2 Tina: 1 damaged

Allied Ships
CA Louisville
CL De Ruyter
CL Leander

Japanese ground losses:
95 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 8 destroyed, 30 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 18 (1 destroyed, 17 disabled)
Vehicles lost 14 (4 destroyed, 10 disabled)

Resources hits 1
Airbase hits 7
Airbase supply hits 5
Runway hits 24
Port hits 13
Port supply hits 2

SOC-1 Seagull acting as spotter for CA Louisville
CA Louisville firing at Bundaberg
CL De Ruyter firing at Bundaberg
CL Leander firing at 33rd Division
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Bombardment at Bundaberg...IJA troopers going to be attacked tomorrow by a stronger force...expect the base to fall.

Ground combat at Bundaberg (96,155)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 5736 troops, 202 guns, 89 vehicles, Assault Value = 972

Defending force 16280 troops, 174 guns, 34 vehicles, Assault Value = 334

Japanese ground losses:
24 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)

Assaulting units:
34th Infantry Regiment
2/8th Armoured Regiment
5th Australian Division
46th Indian Brigade
2/4th Armoured Regiment
3rd Australian Division
5th RAA Coastal Artillery Regiment
4th Australian/A Division
6th RAA Coastal Artillery Regiment
4th Australian/B Division
198th Field Artillery Battalion
147th Field Artillery Battalion
260th Field Artillery Battalion
223rd Field Artillery Battalion
2nd Marine Defense Battalion
131st Field Artillery Battalion
98th Coast AA Regiment
4th RAAF Base Force
148th Field Artillery Battalion
2nd RAA Coastal Artillery Regiment

Defending units:
Sasebo 8th SNLF
33rd Division
Yokosuka 4th SNLF
1st Raiding Rgt /2
4th JAAF AF Bn
1st Medium Field Artillery Regiment
5th Naval Construction Battalion
21st Infantry Rgt /7
User avatar
CaptBeefheart
Posts: 2601
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2003 2:42 am
Location: Seoul, Korea

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

Post by CaptBeefheart »

Good to see the future ARA General Belgrano doing yeoman's work.

No idea what's happening, but good luck.

Cheers,
CB
Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20416
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

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

Post by BBfanboy »

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

A look at those Banshee pilots!



Image
I wonder how well they would do with a good commander ...[;)]
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
Encircled
Posts: 2097
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 3:50 pm
Location: Northern England

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

Post by Encircled »

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: Encircled

I can't believe he's done all that without committing the KB


He did commit the KB and they got a bloody nose over Brisbane...





I am relieved to see that it actually where I'd expect it to be!
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”