More Variants - The Allies ride again - No xargun please

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

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

User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 7273
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: West Yellowstone, Montana

Re: More Variants - The Allies ride again - No xargun please

Post by Nomad »

CaptBeefheart wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 7:01 am
deaniks wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 5:33 am Ya same here doesn't the game penalize you for having too many planes in a group for example in 43 isn't it 150 for allies and that increases to 200 in 44 and just 200 for Japanese all-game?

based on that knowing what I usually do would be maybe 2 CVs and 1 CVl comes to 44 when you get fully coordinated. then at least 1 BB 3 CAs and enough DDs to reach 14 or 15 in a task force Mabey 13 if you want to save the extra DD.
I don't remember the details and don't have the manual handy, but going over the 1943 limit of 150 isn't too big of an issue in my opinion. One negative about having a lot of CV TFs is that gives you more of a chance of one reacting on its own toward the KB and getting slaughtered piecemeal (also, don't use Halsey unless that TF is operating by itself). There are a few old AARs where the CV TFs didn't all stick together, with not very good results for the Allies.

Cheers,
CB
Yes, the manual states that the chance of uncoordination is doubled but never states what the original chance is or what effects it.
My experience is that large ACTFs with good TF commanders and good squadron commanders do not suffer much uncoordination and is not something to worry about.

And I do thank both deaniks and CaptBeefheart for their comments. For my Truk invasion, tentatively scheduled for mid October will have 3 ACTFs configured as
6 x CVs, 1 x CVL, 2 x BBS, 3 x CA, and 10 x DDs. I have 6 modern BBs with a speed of 28 to use and 9+ Baltimore CAs for these TFs. In addition I will have multiple
SCTFs available and I have TF #1 that will be the TF that is the leader and ACTFs and extra SCTFs will follow.
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 7273
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: West Yellowstone, Montana

Re: More Variants - The Allies ride again - No xargun please

Post by Nomad »

CaptBeefheart wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 3:43 am Just caught up here. Not sure about strategy, but I'll chime in on tactics.

I usually group my CVs into fairly large TFs of about 4-6 CVs each. It depends on the number of escorts you have. I'll have them all follow a surface TF of a lower TF number (supposedly lower TF numbers will engage first). I try to keep them all in the same hex.

One thing I also do is separate surface TFs into BB ones, CA ones and CL ones (meaning a few BBs, CAs -OR- CLs and the rest DDs).

I'm off to lunch. I'll see if I can add some thought later this afternoon.

Good luck!

Cheers,
CB
I agree with the ideas here. I do try and keep similar capital ships in their own TFs and mostly try for a total size of 8-15.
T Rav
Posts: 417
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 6:59 am

Re: More Variants - The Allies ride again - No xargun please

Post by T Rav »

Another thing to consider with the CV question is:

Do you want to have periodic massive strikes with all the CVs then retiring for refit and reload, or a continuous grind of smaller numbers, but constant pressure?

It's not a bad problem to have...

Best regards,
T Rav
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 7273
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: West Yellowstone, Montana

More Variants - The Allies ride again - No xargun please

Post by Nomad »

September 7, 1943

A somewhat quiet turn, my Prome bombers were grounded for weather. Some bombing on Rangoon, not sure it is still worth it.

Troops cross the river into Prome this turn, I wonder if there will be any troops there to contest the hex.

T Rav, at this time is not really about what I want to do, but what I can do. I do not really have the CVs available for continuous grind
but for now will have to do the periodic massive strikes. In reality, all of my CV/CVL/CVE are really in defensive mode to cover amphibious operations at this time.
I am sure he has accelerated all of his CV and CVLs so he should have 18 Shokaku class CVs and 29 Ryujo CVLs. So he has more deck space than I do and he does
have A7M2 Sams versus my F4U-1A Corsairs.

A comparison. Corsairs are a bit faster and have higher durability. Sams have better Maneuver and climb. The guns are about equal.
So it seems to me to come down to numbers and pilot skills.
Sam vs Corsair 1A.png
Sam vs Corsair 1A.png (281.77 KiB) Viewed 887 times
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20555
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

Re: More Variants - The Allies ride again - No xargun please

Post by BBfanboy »

Something doesn't compute there - the Corsair can carry a 1000 lb bomb but its max load is shown as 500?
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
Nomad
Posts: 7273
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: West Yellowstone, Montana

Re: More Variants - The Allies ride again - No xargun please

Post by Nomad »

BBfanboy wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 3:10 am Something doesn't compute there - the Corsair can carry a 1000 lb bomb but its max load is shown as 500?
Stock unmodified scenario 2 is the same.
I do not think it matters for the Allies if fighters are correct. I think it is only used for Japanese fighters used as kamikazes.
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 7273
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: West Yellowstone, Montana

More Variants - The Allies ride again - No xargun please

Post by Nomad »

September 8, 1943

In a big show of force, Prome is liberated.

Ground combat at Prome (55,50)

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 56932 troops, 988 guns, 1328 vehicles, Assault Value = 2023

Defending force 18690 troops, 162 guns, 42 vehicles, Assault Value = 589

Allied adjusted assault: 2970

Japanese adjusted defense: 222

Allied assault odds: 13 to 1 (fort level 5)

Allied forces CAPTURE Prome !!!

Combat modifiers
Defender: forts(+), disruption(-), preparation(-), fatigue(-)
experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
4319 casualties reported
Squads: 389 destroyed, 17 disabled
Non Combat: 215 destroyed, 88 disabled
Engineers: 38 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 128 (123 destroyed, 5 disabled)
Vehicles lost 39 (39 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units retreated 2

Allied ground losses:
636 casualties reported
Squads: 10 destroyed, 67 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 34 disabled
Engineers: 4 destroyed, 21 disabled

Defeated Japanese Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
73rd Motorised Brigade
18th British Division
9th Indian Division
3rd Carabiniers Regiment
Gardner's Horse Regiment
42nd Cavalry Regiment
7th Armoured Brigade
2nd British Division
5th Indian Division
23rd Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
21st Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
26th Indian Mountain Gun Regiment

Defending units:
61st Infantry Group
2nd Guards Division
53rd JNAF AF Unit
The Japanese units retreated to the NE, towards the closer Toungoo. All of my armor is pursuing them up the major road.

We traded aircraft losses, 20 for each of us
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20555
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

Re: More Variants - The Allies ride again - No xargun please

Post by BBfanboy »

When the Japanese fighters have been dealt with, I use my fighters for bombing and strafing a lot - so the bomb load is an issue for me. If it is 500 lbs capacity, I might send the Corsairs to bomb troops but if it can carry a 1000 pounder, I could send them against cruisers!
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
Nomad
Posts: 7273
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: West Yellowstone, Montana

More Variants - The Allies ride again - No xargun please

Post by Nomad »

What I am trying to say is that for Allied fighters the max load doesn't mean anything, it is the actual bomb load out that matters.

For bombers it is used in the calculation of supply movement.
And for minimum size airfield for full use.

I do believe that it is used in calculation of damage possibility for kamikazes
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20555
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

Re: More Variants - The Allies ride again - No xargun please

Post by BBfanboy »

Ah - thanks! I didn't know the code would ignore that field for fighters and use the mission/loadout data instead. Something new all the time ...
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
Nomad
Posts: 7273
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: West Yellowstone, Montana

Re: More Variants - The Allies ride again - No xargun please

Post by Nomad »

I do not have a link, but I am sure it was JWE that made the comment that there were a number of fields in the databases that had values that were not used.
They were put in during development for a reason but they never implemented that function. They just never really cleaned up the data bases since it did
not make any difference if they did or not as far as the game working.
User avatar
Yaab
Posts: 5542
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:09 pm
Location: Poland

Re: More Variants - The Allies ride again - No xargun please

Post by Yaab »

What about fighter-bombers (FB) then?
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 7273
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: West Yellowstone, Montana

More Variants - The Allies ride again - No xargun please

Post by Nomad »

September 9, 1943
What about fighter-bombers (FB) then?
As far as I can tell, the program treats them as fighters for the most part.

Not much happened today, swept a few mines at Gove, I forgot to list an SC was lost last turn to a mine there.

Bombings continue, my forces have caught up with the Japanese outside of Prome and they have entered Shwebo.
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 7273
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: West Yellowstone, Montana

More Variants - The Allies ride again - No xargun please

Post by Nomad »

September 10, 1943

Why does it seem that often the last mine swept is by a AM hitting it?
TF 244 encounters mine field at Gove (82,127)

Allied Ships
AM Abraham Crijnssen

12 mines cleared


---------------------------------------------

TF 244 encounters mine field at Gove (82,127)

Allied Ships
AM Abraham Crijnssen

12 mines cleared


---------------------------------------------

TF 113 encounters mine field at Gove (82,127)

Allied Ships
AM Wagga, Mine hits 1, heavy damage
AM Strahan

11 mines cleared
Moved the enemy units off the road next to Prome and into Toungoo

Ground combat at 56,50 (near Toungoo)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 4643 troops, 26 guns, 492 vehicles, Assault Value = 412

Defending force 10032 troops, 74 guns, 16 vehicles, Assault Value = 254

Allied adjusted assault: 226

Japanese adjusted defense: 99

Allied assault odds: 2 to 1

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

Japanese ground losses:
3865 casualties reported
Squads: 94 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 146 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 5 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 11 (5 destroyed, 6 disabled)
Vehicles lost 3 (2 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Units retreated 3

Allied ground losses:
21 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Vehicles lost 7 (1 destroyed, 6 disabled)
Units pursuing 1

Defeated Japanese Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
3rd Carabiniers Regiment
42nd Cavalry Regiment
73rd Motorised Brigade
7th Armoured Brigade
Gardner's Horse Regiment

Defending units:
61st Infantry Group
2nd Guards Division
53rd JNAF AF Unit
I landed troops at Sarmi on New Guinea.

This probably frustrated Xargun
DDs and APDs are hard to hit with torpedoes.
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Sarmi at 91,114

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 30 minutes

Japanese aircraft
G3M3 Nell x 52

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M3 Nell: 16 damaged
G3M3 Nell: 2 destroyed by flak

Allied Ships
DD Smith
DD Flusser
DD Mahan
APD Gregory
DD Reid
APD Little
DD Shaw
DD Cushing

Aircraft Attacking:
32 x G3M3 Nell launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
18 x G3M3 Nell launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo



---------------------------------------------

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Sarmi at 91,114

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 79 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 29 minutes

Japanese aircraft
G3M3 Nell x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M3 Nell: 6 damaged

Allied Ships
DD Smith
DD Flusser
DD Preston

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x G3M3 Nell launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo



---------------------------------------------

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Sarmi at 91,114

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 43 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
G3M3 Nell x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M3 Nell: 3 damaged

Allied Ships
DD Smith
DD Perkins
DD Case

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x G3M3 Nell launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
More bombing in numerous locations
User avatar
CaptBeefheart
Posts: 2617
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2003 2:42 am
Location: Seoul, Korea

Re: More Variants - The Allies ride again - No xargun please

Post by CaptBeefheart »

Truk is a tough nut to crack. Any idea of what is there now?

If the force level there is similar to stock, you'll want to embed slow BBs in each Amphib TF to absorb shore fire. You'll want to have ARs hanging out at Kusaie (sp?) or Ponape to help fix the massive system damage those BBs and other ships will receive. Some ARDs nearby wouldn't hurt either, as well as plenty of AEs and AKEs for rearming, and ADs to put torps on DDs.

There are a couple of AARs that feature Truk invasions which would be instructive if you can find them. In general, you'll want a low ratio of troops to ship capacity so they unload quickly, extra Amphib TFs with ships only holding supply (such as LSTs) since you should be going in overstacked, and do plenty of bombardment missions in advance. In my experience shore batteries don't normally do a lot of damage to bombarding ships, but SYS damage can accumulate. I tend to like using CL TFs for shore bombardment as they are easy to rearm and more expendable than BBs.

Regarding the surface TFs, there's a thread somewhere on that. I believe it was CRsutton who stated that surface TFs work best when the primary vessels have the same caliber. For instance, 8-inch CAs will have a greater range than 6-inch CLs, thus in a mixed TF the firing may be over even before the CLs get to fire. Same with BBs mixed with cruisers. I tend to like 3 or 4x[BB, CA or CL] and 4 to 6xDD for my surface TFs. I think if the TFs are much bigger not every ship will necessarily get involved. More TFs hammering the enemy may result in them being out of ammo when your last TF comes into play.

EDIT: Back in 1998 I did a five-day live aboard dive trip at Chu'uk lagoon (i.e. Truk). I recall diving 11 different vessels, including mostly AKs, an AS (torpedoes and spare periscopes were cool) and an AKE with a lot of 18.1 in. rounds. It's hard to believe it was 24 years ago. It's a fantastic trip if anyone on this forum is a diver.

Cheers,
CB
Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 7273
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: West Yellowstone, Montana

More Variants - The Allies ride again - No xargun please

Post by Nomad »

September 11, 1943

Not a lot, I had an motorized Brigade follow the Japanese into Toungoo last turn, this turn they got booted out
but now I know what is there.

Ground combat at Toungoo (57,50)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 68462 troops, 695 guns, 1430 vehicles, Assault Value = 2849

Defending force 3950 troops, 64 guns, 159 vehicles, Assault Value = 114

Japanese adjusted assault: 1464

Allied adjusted defense: 15

Japanese assault odds: 97 to 1

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

Japanese ground losses:
135 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 16 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Allied ground losses:
1608 casualties reported
Squads: 98 destroyed, 13 disabled
Non Combat: 30 destroyed, 37 disabled
Engineers: 11 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 37 (15 destroyed, 22 disabled)
Vehicles lost 59 (27 destroyed, 32 disabled)
Units retreated 1

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
116th Division
56th Division
1st Tank Division
42nd Division
52nd Division
2nd Guards Division
Guards Tank Division
26th Air Flotilla
21st Medium Field Artillery Battalion
15th Army
61st Infantry Group
25th JNAF AF Unit
53rd JNAF AF Unit
94th JAAF AF Bn

Defending units:
73rd Motorised Brigade
My flights in Burma were grounded by weather.

Not much else happened.

One thing I am not sure about, there is a movement arrow at Rangoon to the East. I wonder how many units are moving out.
It might be Base Forces, the airfield has extensive damage.
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 7273
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: West Yellowstone, Montana

Re: More Variants - The Allies ride again - No xargun please

Post by Nomad »

CaptBeefheart wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 1:22 am Truk is a tough nut to crack. Any idea of what is there now?

If the force level there is similar to stock, you'll want to embed slow BBs in each Amphib TF to absorb shore fire. You'll want to have ARs hanging out at Kusaie (sp?) or Ponape to help fix the massive system damage those BBs and other ships will receive. Some ARDs nearby wouldn't hurt either, as well as plenty of AEs and AKEs for rearming, and ADs to put torps on DDs.

There are a couple of AARs that feature Truk invasions which would be instructive if you can find them. In general, you'll want a low ratio of troops to ship capacity so they unload quickly, extra Amphib TFs with ships only holding supply (such as LSTs) since you should be going in overstacked, and do plenty of bombardment missions in advance. In my experience shore batteries don't normally do a lot of damage to bombarding ships, but SYS damage can accumulate. I tend to like using CL TFs for shore bombardment as they are easy to rearm and more expendable than BBs.

Regarding the surface TFs, there's a thread somewhere on that. I believe it was CRsutton who stated that surface TFs work best when the primary vessels have the same caliber. For instance, 8-inch CAs will have a greater range than 6-inch CLs, thus in a mixed TF the firing may be over even before the CLs get to fire. Same with BBs mixed with cruisers. I tend to like 3 or 4x[BB, CA or CL] and 4 to 6xDD for my surface TFs. I think if the TFs are much bigger not every ship will necessarily get involved. More TFs hammering the enemy may result in them being out of ammo when your last TF comes into play.

EDIT: Back in 1998 I did a five-day live aboard dive trip at Chu'uk lagoon (i.e. Truk). I recall diving 11 different vessels, including mostly AKs, an AS (torpedoes and spare periscopes were cool) and an AKE with a lot of 18.1 in. rounds. It's hard to believe it was 24 years ago. It's a fantastic trip if anyone on this forum is a diver.

Cheers,
CB
Truk is always a tough invasion. Right now I have prepped 100% for Truk

1 USMC Division
3 USA Divisions
2 NZ Brigades
6 USA Tank Bn
1 USA Tank Destroyer Bn
NZ 1st Tank Bde
6 USA Art Rgts with 24 x 155mm guns
2 USMC ART Bn
2 x USA Combat Engineer Regiments
III US Corps HQ

I have enough assault shipping to land all of it in one day using nothing but APA, AKA, LSD, LST ships
I will be landing about 82,000 stacking units in that one day. That should be enough to take the island
in a few days. In round numbers I will have about 46 APA, 16 AKA, 3 LSD, and 65 LST ships available, along
with 30 LCIs. I have so many assault shipping ships, that I will have to split it up into 2 TFs.

For support I have 9 prewar BBs, a number of CAs and CLs, 25 or so AMs, etc. At this point I expect I will use
two amphibious TFs landing at the same time. What I am not sure about is whether I will put together a Bombardment
TF or 3 or not. I might want to just embed the BBs into the amphibious TFs.
I expect him to have lots of stuff to oppose me. There will be mines, CDs, etc. But he can only put
60,000 stacking on the base and he will need some for base forces and maybe AA.

Surface Combat TFs will start with the 4 New Jersey BBs I have and also one or two around my New Orleans CAs.
Brooklyn CLs are available and they pack a punch. And I do have a number of Fletcher DDs available also.

So, I expect mines, CD guns, level 9 forts, and a lot of units. I hope to have more and to land at least 75,000 supply, all
in at most 2 days. I do not want to stick around for long.

I do have a number of AEs, AKEs, a 2-3 ARs at Ponape and I hope to have an ARD there by the time I go. I have Rabaul
with a size 7 port and an ARD.

I am getting 205 P-47D25s per month now and they can fly from Ponape to Truk with drop tanks within normal range. I will use
some to sweep Truk and then use heavy bombers to bomb, both at night and in the day.
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20555
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

Re: More Variants - The Allies ride again - No xargun please

Post by BBfanboy »

I have sandboxed the invasion of Truk a couple of times. I softened it up for two months with almost continuous bombardments and bombing whenever weather permitted. I took Ponape for the 2E bombers and Mussau + Manus Islands for the 4E bombers. Of course the airfield was destroyed and the Marianas did not have enough IJ aircraft to interfere with my attacks on Truk.

First up was mine clearing - I lost several AMs but I started embedding DMS in my bombardment TFs and they swept some mines too. But once all the minefields were discovered my TFs had not problems avoiding them. My Bombardment TFs started from the 30K to 15K range and when there was little return fire I set the escorts to bombard as well and the big ships often went closer too (most often to 6000 yards but as close as 4000 sometimes).

The bombardments and bombing always went the same way - first support troops took the casualties and then engineers and then combat troops. Only after that did the fortress and CD units start to show disabled and destroyed devices. By that time Truk was out of supply and ripe for the picking. Cue the landings (tank and arty heavy). I didn't need paratroops, but I dropped a couple of the Marine Para Bns to give them experience. Truk didn't have much AV during the attacks but it took a couple of days to knock the forts down a few levels. I did have a Combat Engineer Rgt and IIRC a CE Bn in addition to the ones embedded with infantry. They usually needed at least one day of recovery after every assault on the forts.
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
Nomad
Posts: 7273
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: West Yellowstone, Montana

More Variants - The Allies ride again - No xargun please

Post by Nomad »

September 12, 1943

BBfanboy, I am not ignoring you, I am in the process of reevaluating my position, my objectives, etc.
I have to keep in mind that I am very far in advance of the historical timeline and I must avoid at all
costs the "I must do something" syndrome. I have to reel my self in at times and wait for the right time
to do things. I am moving the 7 old BBs I have available now to Ponape to begin bombarding, I have
at least 2 replenishment TFs with AOs and 8 AE/AKEs loaded with supply on the way. Ponape has a good load
of both fuel and supply to reload those ships.

My forces crossed the river into Mandalay

Ground combat at Mandalay (59,46)

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 10739 troops, 148 guns, 723 vehicles, Assault Value = 1584

Defending force 1404 troops, 14 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 55

Allied adjusted assault: 666

Japanese adjusted defense: 2

Allied assault odds: 333 to 1 (fort level 4)

Allied forces CAPTURE Mandalay !!!

Combat modifiers
Defender: op mode(-), leaders(+), preparation(-), morale(-)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
493 casualties reported
Squads: 81 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 12 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 13 (8 destroyed, 5 disabled)
Units retreated 1

Allied ground losses:
71 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled
Vehicles lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Units pursuing 3

Defeated Japanese Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
254th Armoured Brigade
8th Chinese Corps
255th Armoured Brigade
268th Motorised Brigade
5th Chinese Corps
4th Heavy Mortar Regiment

Defending units:
7th RTA/B Division
The Chinese forces are in pursuit.

A good day in the air
Over Prome his Sams did not fare well at all
Morning Air attack on Prome , at 55,50

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 46 NM, estimated altitude 33,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A7M2 Sam x 26

Allied aircraft
Spitfire Vc Trop x 16
P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 25

Japanese aircraft losses
A7M2 Sam: 12 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Spitfire Vc Trop: 1 destroyed

CAP engaged:
No.453 Sqn RAF with Spitfire Vc Trop (0 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 17000 , scrambling fighters between 17000 and 35000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes
51st FG/16th FS with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 42000 , scrambling fighters between 30000 and 42000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 19 minutes
Over my troops SE of Prome his bombers had a similar fate.
Morning Air attack on 21st Indian Mountain Gun Regiment, at 55,51 , near Prome

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 15 NM, estimated altitude 22,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-49-IIb Helen x 36

Allied aircraft
P-47D2 Thunderbolt x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49-IIb Helen: 9 destroyed, 1 damaged

No Allied losses

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

Aircraft Attacking:
22 x Ki-49-IIb Helen bombing from 18000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
23rd FG/74th FS with P-47D2 Thunderbolt (24 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(24 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
24 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 10000.
Raid is overhead
I used most of my heavy and medium bombers to bomb the airfield and troops at Toungoo
Bad weather, terrain, and I am sure forts prevent me from getting good results, I can only keep
trying and hopefully lower his supply and raise the disruption and fatigue of the units. I am
moving to surround the hex so I can enter from all 6 sides and slowly eliminate all the troops there.

Because of last turns combat I know what he has in Toungoo

15th Army
116th Division
56th Division
42nd Division
52nd Division

Guards Tank Division
1st Tank Division

21st Medium Field Artillery Battalion

26th Air Flotilla
25th JNAF AF Unit
94th JAAF AF Bn
53rd JNAF AF Unit These units very weak from previous defeats
61st Infantry Group
2nd Guards Division
combatreport.txt
(26.79 KiB) Downloaded 10 times
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20555
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

Re: More Variants - The Allies ride again - No xargun please

Post by BBfanboy »

Nomad: BBfanboy, I am not ignoring you
I was not expecting a reply - I posted my experience in case some of the newer players were interested in how to tackle the problem. Saves them the trouble of sandboxing too.

Looks like you are bringing a good bit of punching power and if you are much earlier than historic the forts and troops on Truk should be weaker. Good luck!
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”