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
Encircled
Posts: 2097
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 3:50 pm
Location: Northern England

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

Post by Encircled »

Looking really good it has to be said - how he's going to get those ships out of the DEI to somewhere useful is going to require quite a bit of effort (if he can do it at all)
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Aug 25th, 1943

Always viewed Indochina as incredibly important to Japan...especially Vinh. The low risk tactic taking the war forward would be a ground advance along the Chinese Coastline.
a.jpg
a.jpg (579.66 KiB) Viewed 742 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Lots of typical destroyer fights but Yamato disappears most likely south....
a.jpg
a.jpg (480.15 KiB) Viewed 741 times
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 17901
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

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

Post by RangerJoe »

Well the Yamato needs large ports with naval support to fully rearm so you can figure out where she will be unless there is the very large AKE available.

Those IJN DDs would be vulnerable to Avengers on Low Naval with four 500 pound bombs so that is an option to try for a turn or two while the Yamato is gone and rearming.

As far as Vihn IJN bombardments go, mines laid in the coastal waters might help to slow that down plus a city attack dropping mines on the turns that they are expected to arrive and/or depart their home port could cause some problems as well. While those mines would be detected that turn, they should still have their chance at damaging some ships.

Since it would be difficult for your opponent to haul fuel and/or oil out of the DEI, can you try to shift some naval operations away from that theater so he won't be able to utilize the DEI's fuel and instead use fuel from the Home Islands area? Also, maybe some more submarine operations past the Kuriles to impede the flow of oil to Honshu?

A very nice job in Indochina and all of Southeast Asia. Are you building large stockpile of supplies to force feed the Chinese as soon as possible? Then they could put some pressure on those Japanese units in the Chungking area.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child
Image
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20312
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

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

Post by BBfanboy »

RangerJoe wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 1:29 pm Well the Yamato needs large ports with naval support to fully rearm so you can figure out where she will be unless there is the very large AKE available.
I thought one of the updates to the stock game changed the AE/AKE requirement so that you could combine the capacity of multiple AKEs to reach the rearm size needed for the Yamatos?
I did not agree with that change but the IJ players made the case that the Yamatos were almost useless without it, or the addition of multiple large AKE conversions to support them.
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
RangerJoe
Posts: 17901
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

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

Post by RangerJoe »

BBfanboy wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 2:45 pm
RangerJoe wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 1:29 pm Well the Yamato needs large ports with naval support to fully rearm so you can figure out where she will be unless there is the very large AKE available.
I thought one of the updates to the stock game changed the AE/AKE requirement so that you could combine the capacity of multiple AKEs to reach the rearm size needed for the Yamatos?
I did not agree with that change but the IJ players made the case that the Yamatos were almost useless without it, or the addition of multiple large AKE conversions to support them.
There are the large 4900 ton AKEs available to the Japanese. One comes in if they build it while conversions can be made.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child
Image
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Aug 26, 1943

Here I try a very high escort with bombers at 10k....they coordinate nicely and seem to get good results. Destroying IJN destroyers is a day 1 high priority. That is a "Tokyo Express" destroyer, Fubuki class from WW1.

Morning Air attack on Cam Ranh Bay , at 64,72

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 47 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 16 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5c Zero x 9
A6M8 Zero x 1
Ki-43-IIIa Oscar x 26
Ki-43-IV Oscar x 2
Ki-44-IIc Tojo x 30
Ki-61-Ib Tony x 16

Allied aircraft
B-24D1 Liberator x 11
P-38G Lightning x 16

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-24D1 Liberator: 2 destroyed, 7 damaged
P-38G Lightning: 2 destroyed

Japanese Ships
DD Hatsuyuki, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
CMc Ma 1, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
CMc Toshima, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Port Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
4 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Port Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
64th Sentai with Ki-43-IV Oscar (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 8000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 8000.
Raid is overhead
202 Ku S-1 Det B with A6M8 Zero (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 8000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 8000.
Raid is overhead
1 planes vectored on to bombers
1st Sentai with Ki-43-IIIa Oscar (8 airborne, 18 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 17000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 17000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 10 minutes
20 planes vectored on to bombers
78th Sentai with Ki-61-Ib Tony (5 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 13000 and 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 11 minutes
11 planes vectored on to bombers
87th Sentai with Ki-44-IIc Tojo (10 airborne, 20 on standby, 0 scrambling)
10 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 36000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 36000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 8 minutes
22 planes vectored on to bombers
Unyo-1 with A6M5c Zero (3 airborne, 6 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 8000 , scrambling fighters between 8000 and 12000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 9 minutes
9 planes vectored on to bombers
a.jpg
a.jpg (415.48 KiB) Viewed 625 times
Last edited by Lowpe on Sun Jun 11, 2023 11:31 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 »

Vinh under attack....
admiral.jpg
admiral.jpg (574.45 KiB) Viewed 624 times
Ground combat at Vinh (65,59)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 27209 troops, 199 guns, 93 vehicles, Assault Value = 714

Defending force 8133 troops, 28 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 365

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 1

Japanese adjusted assault: 393

Allied adjusted defense: 277

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

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 1

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

Japanese ground losses:
1135 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 123 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 7 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Guns lost 8 (1 destroyed, 7 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
176 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 17 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 21 disabled

Assaulting units:
17th Division
56th Infantry Brigade
32nd Division
15th Ind.Medium Field Artillery Regiment

Defending units:
111th LRP Brigade
8th New Chinese Corps
I Aus Corps Engineer Battalion
99th Indian Bde /1
85th British AT Rgt /1
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

This fraction gets destroyed in Indochina....the 4th Guards Div primary unit just retreated yesterday with reported heavy losses in the Rangoon pocket. Now the race is on to get the tanks to Vinh! :o

Ground combat at 60,68 (near Kompong Chhnang)

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 1050 troops, 0 guns, 196 vehicles, Assault Value = 104

Defending force 126 troops, 2 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 9

Allied adjusted assault: 142

Japanese adjusted defense: 1

Allied assault odds: 142 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
147 casualties reported
Squads: 6 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 2 (2 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units destroyed 1

Assaulting units:
2nd USMC Tank Battalion
1st Army Tank Regiment

Defending units:
4th Guards Div /1
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Dark days indeed for the IJA in Burma...Burma always seems to be one big trap.
a.jpg
a.jpg (735.48 KiB) Viewed 579 times
Last edited by Lowpe on Mon Jun 12, 2023 6:42 pm, edited 2 times 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 »

Really not much good news for Japan....
a.jpg
a.jpg (621.62 KiB) Viewed 574 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Well, it have been an amazing fight in China...made some rookie mistakes but overall they did a great job. British forces (artillery, LRPS, and Africans) did stellar work. Not worth sending armored units here though given how the combat works.


There is no reason whatsoever for the Allies to concede China without a bitter fight.
a.jpg
a.jpg (421.27 KiB) Viewed 562 times
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 17901
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

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

Post by RangerJoe »

That is looking good for you.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child
Image
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Aug 27, 1943

Detach several smallish squadrons in an attempt to intercept the IJN CL SAG at Saigon...three of our forces make contact plus some subs and even assault bombers:
a.jpg
a.jpg (223.72 KiB) Viewed 456 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Our first DESRON goes in....conditions favor us. Like most destroyer skirmishes damage is very light....

Night Time Surface Combat, near Saigon at 61,73, Range 7,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CL Jintsu
CL Isuzu, Shell hits 1
DD Kiyonami
DD Harusame, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Oite
DD Numakaze
DD Urukaze

Allied Ships
DD Kalk
DD McCook
DD Frankford, Shell hits 1
DD Cummings

Reduced sighting due to 17% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions and 17% moonlight: 10,000 yards
A20BismarckSea.jpg
A20BismarckSea.jpg (269.17 KiB) Viewed 451 times
Last edited by Lowpe on Tue Jun 13, 2023 10:34 am, 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 »

A second squadron races into the action:

Night Time Surface Combat, near Saigon at 61,73, Range 8,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CL Jintsu, Shell hits 2
CL Isuzu, Shell hits 1
DD Kiyonami, Shell hits 2
DD Harusame, on fire
DD Oite
DD Numakaze
DD Urukaze

Allied Ships
CL Leander, Shell hits 2
CL Tromp
DD Wilson, Shell hits 1
DD Dewey

Reduced sighting due to 17% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions and 17% moonlight: 9,000 yards
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Fletcher squadron for the cleanup....plus some assault bombers show up....and scratch three enemy destroyers. Bennett will need some repairs, but we are flooding the area with ADs and ARs and the ARDs are arriving (slowly).
admiral.jpg
admiral.jpg (327.23 KiB) Viewed 452 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 really wants Chungking....
A20BismarckSea.jpg
A20BismarckSea.jpg (568.83 KiB) Viewed 447 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....the destruction of the 4th Guards Division continues.
b.jpg
b.jpg (529.1 KiB) Viewed 446 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Rangoon liberated today!

Only Pegu left for the Burma road to open back up. :D 100k IJA troopers there and 52 fighters.
b.jpg
b.jpg (565.69 KiB) Viewed 445 times
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”