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 »

It is not all grim, in fact it is pretty good....the main axis of advance saw a big jump today...

Morotai heavily reinforced and should build extremely fast now.

Mindano: our invasion task forces are unharmed...just watch out for iboats! ;)
A20BismarckSea.jpg
A20BismarckSea.jpg (179.25 KiB) Viewed 487 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Potential for a lot of fireworks again today...will see what Japan does! :D
A20BismarckSea.jpg
A20BismarckSea.jpg (467.29 KiB) Viewed 486 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 screening destroyers for the Fiji Bde, in truth they would just have cause the IJN to expend more ammo, reacted off patrol spot and sank these sub chasers down near Namlea. What a fubar the southern orders turned out to be....heads will roll in the USN after this debacle. :D

Night Time Surface Combat, near Obi at 76,106, Range 1,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
SC Ch 1, Shell hits 11, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
SC Ch 2, Shell hits 12, and is sunk
SC Ch 3, Shell hits 10, and is sunk

Allied Ships
DD Fletcher
DD Beale
DD Cony
DD LaVallette, Shell hits 2

Reduced visibility due to Rain with 92% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Rain and 92% moonlight: 2,000 yards
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Our PT boats put up a valiant fight...the first fight a great skirmish and the 2nd they all went down...but if the orders were correct for the attack transports they would have all fled and saved themselves except for two that were stuck in that unloading error on a non base hex. I did that in Russia once too! :D :D :D

Night Time Surface Combat, near Batjan at 78,104, Range 12,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CA Atago
DD Fubuki
DD Yayoi
DD Hayate

Allied Ships
PT-248
PT-279
PT-280
PT-287

Improved night sighting under 92% moonlight
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Proof of concept....we had one Australian squadron on night attack and some of the planes did fly....need to coordinate HQa for the squadrons to get better numbers flying....and the IJN steamed right thru our sub pickets without an attack.

Perfect conditions, lots of moonlight, radar and clear weather.

Night Air attack on TF, near Ternate at 77,102

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 29 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Allied aircraft
Beaufort VIII x 3

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
BB Kongo

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x Beaufort VIII launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22.4in Mk 13 Torp.
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

A trained low naval Airacobra squadron got in an attack too...they picked a retreating CA SAG, one hex off the main concentration which was heavily CAP'd.

Morning Air attack on TF, near Batjan at 77,105

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 14 NM, estimated altitude 4,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Allied aircraft
P-400 Airacobra x 22

Allied aircraft losses
P-400 Airacobra: 5 damaged

Japanese Ships
DD Yayoi, Shell hits 3
DD Oite, Shell hits 1
CA Atago
DD Fubuki
DD Hayate

Aircraft Attacking:
22 x P-400 Airacobra bombing from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Another big attack at Chungking!

Ground combat at Chungking (76,45)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 116278 troops, 1496 guns, 2634 vehicles, Assault Value = 3912

Defending force 142471 troops, 45 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 3670

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 2

Japanese adjusted assault: 3622

Allied adjusted defense: 6449

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

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

Japanese ground losses:
17462 casualties reported
Squads: 60 destroyed, 1376 disabled
Non Combat: 6 destroyed, 302 disabled
Engineers: 16 destroyed, 133 disabled
Guns lost 166 (8 destroyed, 158 disabled)
Vehicles lost 305 (28 destroyed, 277 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
5524 casualties reported
Squads: 30 destroyed, 354 disabled
Non Combat: 21 destroyed, 159 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Units destroyed 1
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

We are stronger at Chungking than it looks, since a lot of units that had 0 supply were on reserve no pursuit mode. Our disruption and fatigue is pretty good for the combat units despite being bombed by hundred of bombers daily.
A20BismarckSea.jpg
A20BismarckSea.jpg (298.12 KiB) Viewed 479 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 being aggressive today...the turn is away. Will most likely lose more ships today! ;)
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

I think there is a garrison requirement for Davao...check out that port damage.

I believe I have seen several Chinese bases that don't have garrisons either....I have never played Japan without meeting the garrison requirements...or taking all the bases in the SRA. This is a different Japan! ;)
a.jpg
a.jpg (98.2 KiB) Viewed 471 times
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20363
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

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

Post by BBfanboy »

Lowpe wrote: Sun Feb 26, 2023 1:55 pm I think there is a garrison requirement for Davao...check out that port damage.

I believe I have seen several Chinese bases that don't have garrisons either....I have never played Japan without meeting the garrison requirements...or taking all the bases in the SRA. This is a different Japan! ;)

a.jpg
You could call it holier than thou!
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
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

The next day....feeling pretty good about it right now...
a.jpg
a.jpg (278.11 KiB) Viewed 414 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 IJN split their forces with most cruiser sized task forces heading to Babeldaob...while their battleships went to Kendari.

Cotabato and Davos are disappointing in that they are heavily damaged....and I guess this answers the recon question...that only damage to the service side shows up on recon of enemy bases and there is no reflection of how damaged the runways are.

Bulk of USN is now between Talaud and Davos....along with most APAs. 21 land units on Mindanao...
a.jpg
a.jpg (590.71 KiB) Viewed 397 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Moving forward while the bases aren't defended....

Normally, as Japan I would be doing everything to buy time....delay the Allied advance awaiting for the Japanese reinforcements to kick in.

Therefor as a budding AFB, I am ignoring the IJN and pushing forward to establish bases threatening the Japanese line of supply.
a.jpg
a.jpg (388.96 KiB) Viewed 396 times
I will get recon on Jolo today...and take it if it is free...but I suspect at least a ENG unit is there.
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

I lost 2 Fletchers on the day...here. One of the lost ships took a 40cm hit!

Night Time Surface Combat, near Obi at 78,106, Range 11,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
BB Yamato, Shell hits 1
CA Maya
DD Amagiri
DD Kikuzuki, Shell hits 2
DD Kosugiri
DD Myojinami, Shell hits 1
DD Tagonami

Allied Ships
DD Fletcher
DD Beale, Shell hits 2
DD Cony, Shell hits 6, and is sunk
DD LaVallette, Shell hits 2, and is sunk

Improved night sighting under 85% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions and 85% moonlight: 12,000 yards
Range closes to 23,000 yards...
Range closes to 17,000 yards...
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Our heavy cruiser did well:

Night Time Surface Combat, near Morotai at 80,101, Range 11,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
DD Hagikaze, Shell hits 1
DD Tanikaze
DD Ayanami, Shell hits 4, heavy fires
DD Ushio

Allied Ships
CA Minneapolis
DD McCook, Shell hits 1
DD Perkins
DD Farragut, Shell hits 1, on fire

Improved night sighting under 85% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions and 85% moonlight: 12,000 yards

Night Time Surface Combat, near Morotai at 80,101, Range 11,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CL Jintsu, Shell hits 1
CL Isuzu, Shell hits 1
CL Yubari, Shell hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Minegumo, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Fumizuki

Allied Ships
CA Minneapolis, Shell hits 1
DD McCook, on fire
DD Perkins, Shell hits 2
DD Farragut, on fire

And then not so well...

Day Time Surface Combat, near Morotai at 80,100, Range 29,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
DD Tanikaze
DD Ushio, Shell hits 1, heavy fires

Allied Ships
CA Minneapolis
DD McCook, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Perkins, Shell hits 2, heavy fires
DD Farragut, Shell hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage

Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions: 30,000 yards
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 29,000 yards
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Two air mistakes today...bombed Rangoon during the day instead of the night and lost 19 bombers...but a good day in the air.
a.jpg
a.jpg (103.07 KiB) Viewed 391 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Doing what we can in China around Chungking...
a.jpg
a.jpg (253.04 KiB) Viewed 370 times
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20363
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

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

Post by BBfanboy »

Your decision to go after the LOC instead of the ships sounds like Nemo21's thinking. He would sacrifice allied ships without mercy to gain strategic advantage. He also kept his opponent reacting to him with widespread micro-offenses. Well done! This is fascinating to watch.
awed Minion.gif
awed Minion.gif (4.57 MiB) Viewed 368 times
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
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Not very good aim...

Morning Air attack on TF, near Talaud-eilanden at 81,98

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 14 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Allied aircraft
SBD-3 Dauntless x 29

Allied aircraft losses
SBD-3 Dauntless: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
DD Tanikaze, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Ushio, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage

Aircraft Attacking:
14 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
11 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring a Shikinami class DD
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”