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 »

BBfanboy wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 6:44 pm I didn't see any ID of KB air squadrons in the combat reports - did you see some in the animation? The sightings said multiple CVLs so I am thinking Mini-KB. Also, the strikes did not seem all that powerful/numerous for the number of CVs KB should have.

I expect your CVEs were targeted because Japan had the best DL on them, and little on your CVs. I am not sure, but something in the code for Japan might give BBs the same priority as CV types - historically Japan hung on to the idea of BBs as queens of the sea for far too long.

About the subs doing nothing at Ambon - anytime I have had more than two sub TFs in a hex they do squat. I think the code just doesn't know how to handle it so it does nothing. Just my anecdotal evidence, but you might try fewer sub TFs in the hex.
I need to rewatch the replay....but simply haven't had the time to do so. I, too, thought the air strike was pretty darn weak even if you added it all up. Perhaps his carriers are fighter heavy.
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20421
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

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

Post by BBfanboy »

Lowpe wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 9:58 pm
BBfanboy wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 6:44 pm
I expect your CVEs were targeted because Japan had the best DL on them, and little on your CVs. I am not sure, but something in the code for Japan might give BBs the same priority as CV types - historically Japan hung on to the idea of BBs as queens of the sea for far too long.
.
A sub nailed a merchant at Ambon...
If all three sub TFs were in the hex at the time, I stand corrected!
computerstrikesback.gif
computerstrikesback.gif (8.88 KiB) Viewed 872 times
Can I sit down now? It's hard typing while standing.
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
BBfanboy
Posts: 20421
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

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

Post by BBfanboy »

Great job on turning back all those IJN SAGs! Hope you have some AKEs with you to put in port.
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 »

BBfanboy wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 11:41 pm
Lowpe wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 9:58 pm
BBfanboy wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 6:44 pm
I expect your CVEs were targeted because Japan had the best DL on them, and little on your CVs. I am not sure, but something in the code for Japan might give BBs the same priority as CV types - historically Japan hung on to the idea of BBs as queens of the sea for far too long.
.
A sub nailed a merchant at Ambon...
If all three sub TFs were in the hex at the time, I stand corrected! computerstrikesback.gif
Can I sit down now? It's hard typing while standing.
As Japan, I have consistently raided Allied Ports in 1941-42 and early 43 very heavily with up to 10 Iboats and have had great success. One trick is the port must be size 2 or smaller and it helps if the ships aren't docked too, I think.
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 »

It doesn't look like he brought many flattops to this battle. I must have missed something, but why didn't your CVs hit his? Anyway, his navy airframe numbers took a huge hit. Well played.

Regarding CVEs, I've always figured it's best to have them in their own CVE TFs to take advantage of the leader's air rating and so they wouldn't be slowed down by other vessels in a surface fight. I've never had trouble with CVE TFs following the lead of another TF.

I hope you have ADs, AKEs and AEs in that gaggle. If you've ever read this https://www.amazon.com/Beans-Bullets-Bl ... B06XGJJT26 you will seriously appreciate ADs, AKEs, ARDs, ARs, AOs, etc.

And how is the Suwanee? Still kicking?

Cheers,
CB
Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

CaptBeefheart wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 7:59 am It doesn't look like he brought many flattops to this battle. I must have missed something, but why didn't your CVs hit his? Anyway, his navy airframe numbers took a huge hit. Well played.

Regarding CVEs, I've always figured it's best to have them in their own CVE TFs to take advantage of the leader's air rating and so they wouldn't be slowed down by other vessels in a surface fight. I've never had trouble with CVE TFs following the lead of another TF.

I hope you have ADs, AKEs and AEs in that gaggle. If you've ever read this https://www.amazon.com/Beans-Bullets-Bl ... B06XGJJT26 you will seriously appreciate ADs, AKEs, ARDs, ARs, AOs, etc.

And how is the Suwanee? Still kicking?

Cheers,
CB
The Fleet Carriers are operating on very short strike windows....as their first purpose is to protect the landings.

Don't have the turn back yet. I don't envy Japan their turn....rebuilding shattered, fractured air groups is a royal pain. Japan has probably lost 15% of their total air frames.
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Not previously mentioned, there was a fair bit of air activity in Burma....with Bombers hitting runways and ports, a big strike planned on the IJA Infantry Division at Chiang Mai that is loaded on trains, and desperate fighting by the LRP that parachuted in to cut rail lines of the Chiang Mai/Bangkok line.

I like using a single squadron per target that is not defended....they get great results.

Morning Air attack on Moulmein , at 55,55

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 31 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft
B-24D1 Liberator x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-57-II Topsy: 3 destroyed on ground

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 10
Airbase supply hits 7
Runway hits 36

Aircraft Attacking:
7 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 6000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

On the Road east of Prome, dive bombers and more are hitting the dug in troops in bad terrain...no AAA to speak of. There aren't enough units to prevent the primary defensive AV from being disrupted.

Morning Air attack on 14th Garrison Unit , at 56,50 , near Prome

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 19 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Allied aircraft
Vengeance I x 44
Kittyhawk IA x 8

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
36 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x Vengeance I releasing from 4000'
Ground Attack: 2 x 500 lb GP Bomb, 2 x 250 lb GP Bomb
Also attacking 22nd Division ...
Also attacking 14th Garrison Unit ...
Also attacking 22nd Division ...


Morning Air attack on 16th Engineer Regiment, at 56,50 , near Prome

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 18 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Allied aircraft
Vengeance I x 13
Kittyhawk IA x 3
P-40K Warhawk x 6

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
12 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Also attacking 14th Garrison Unit ...
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Found the AAA at Prome:

Morning Air attack on Prome , at 55,50

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 20 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Allied aircraft
Vengeance I x 11

Allied aircraft losses
Vengeance I: 6 damaged
Vengeance I: 1 destroyed by flak

Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 5

Aircraft Attacking:
11 x Vengeance I releasing from 2000'
Airfield Attack: 2 x 500 lb GP Bomb, 2 x 250 lb GP Bomb
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Ripping up a Regiment with .50 calibers and bombs....Japan just doesn't have the AAA ability forward.

Morning Air attack on 112th Infantry Regiment, at 54,52 (Bassein)

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid spotted at 20 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-25D1 Mitchell x 9

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
266 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 17 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x B-25D1 Mitchell bombing and strafing from low level
Ground Attack: 6 x 500 lb GP Bomb
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

NorthEast of Panay, the IJN surface fleets surge thru the narrows and enter the waters on the eastern side of Luzon....our subs all miss some juicy shots, and some get punished. This squadron splintered off and found a hit. Another 10 assault bombers were shot down trying to penetrate the main fleets long range cap though. :o

Morning Air attack on TF, near Burias at 80,81

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 11 NM, estimated altitude 4,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 2 minutes

Japanese aircraft
N1K1-J George x 1

Allied aircraft
B-25D1 Mitchell x 3

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-25D1 Mitchell: 3 damaged

Japanese Ships
CL Ninaru
DD Sazanami, Bomb hits 1, on fire

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x B-25D1 Mitchell bombing and strafing from low level
Naval Attack: 6 x 500 lb SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
Yokosuka Ku S-2 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(1 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 11000 , scrambling fighters to 1000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 22 minutes
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

We had some interesting night attacks...this near Panay:

Night Air attack on TF, near Legaspi at 81,83

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 27 NM, estimated altitude 5,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-25G Mitchell x 6

Allied aircraft losses
B-25G Mitchell: 2 damaged
B-25G Mitchell: 1 destroyed by flak

Japanese Ships
BB Hiei
DD Hikokaze
CA Chokai
DD Naganami, Shell hits 2
BB Kongo

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-25G Mitchell bombing and strafing from low level
Naval Attack: 6 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 »

At Ambon, where the Yamato was lost suspected:

Night Air attack on TF, near Ambon at 76,109

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 19 NM, estimated altitude 3,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Allied aircraft
DB-7B x 4

Allied aircraft losses
DB-7B: 1 damaged
DB-7B: 1 destroyed by flak

Japanese Ships
CA Maya

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x DB-7B bombing from 1000 feet *
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg 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 »

Some assorted submarine attacks that didn't score...but did deplete their ASW ammo...

ASW attack near Legaspi at 81,83

Japanese Ships
CL Ninaru
CL Teshio
DD Sazanami
DD Urakaze

Allied Ships
SS Balao, hits 7

SS Balao launches 4 torpedoes at CL Ninaru
Balao bottoming out ....
DD Sazanami fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Urakaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Urakaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Urakaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Urakaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Urakaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Urakaze attacking submerged sub ....
Escort abandons search for sub


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine attack near Cam Ranh Bay at 65,72

Japanese Ships
DD Harusame, heavy damage

Allied Ships
SS Ray

SS Ray launches 2 torpedoes at DD Harusame


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Samah at 69,65

Allied Ships
SS Porpoise

SS Porpoise is sighted by escort
Sub escapes detection


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Ambon at 76,109

Japanese Ships
DD Kikuzuki
DD Myojinami

Allied Ships
SS Gurnard, hits 6

SS Gurnard is sighted by escort
Gurnard bottoming out ....
DD Myojinami fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Myojinami fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Myojinami fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Myojinami attacking submerged sub ....
DD Myojinami fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub
jedwardpita
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2021 8:21 pm

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

Post by jedwardpita »

What is the port and air base size of Quinhon? I would imagine that you have a lot of engineers to expand it rapidly. Does it have any terrain defensive bonus?

Thank you to for this exciting turn!
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

jedwardpita wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 12:19 pm What is the port and air base size of Quinhon? I would imagine that you have a lot of engineers to expand it rapidly. Does it have any terrain defensive bonus?

Thank you to for this exciting turn!
Quinhon is Port 2, AF1, and of this day Fort 1. It is x3 terrain...

15 naval support to rearm 5" guns, 40 for 6" and 129 for 8"
Last edited by Lowpe on Fri Mar 24, 2023 12:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Outnumbered and outgunned and no retreat possible; the valiant LRPs sell their lives for time...refusing to retreat, and denying the rail lines to prevent that IJA Division at Chiang Mai from traveling quickly to south to Bangkok and further...they hold for the day!

Ground combat at Ayuthia (56,61)

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 1609 troops, 0 guns, 76 vehicles, Assault Value = 48

Defending force 94 troops, 2 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 7

Japanese adjusted assault: 15

Allied adjusted defense: 1

Japanese assault odds: 15 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: leaders(+), disruption(-), preparation(-), supply(-)
Attacker: op mode(-), shock(+), fatigue(-)

Allied ground losses:
91 casualties reported
Squads: 7 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Assaulting units:
14th Tank Regiment
23rd Ind Engineer Regiment
25th Air Defense AA Regiment

Defending units:
23rd LRP Bde /1
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Sitrep
a.jpg
a.jpg (865.65 KiB) Viewed 631 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Burma/Thailand
a.jpg
a.jpg (478.9 KiB) Viewed 630 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

An aggressive offensive is launched in Burma despite the monsoon playing havoc with air attacks. More air drops planned, and our goals are outlined below:
a.jpg
a.jpg (574.98 KiB) Viewed 516 times
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”