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 »

October 26, 1943

A hit!

Sub attack near Toboali at 51,94

Japanese Ships
CA Takao, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage
DD Akatsuki

Allied Ships
SS Stingray

SS Stingray launches 4 torpedoes at CA Takao
a.jpg
a.jpg (422.46 KiB) Viewed 1410 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Just moving troops...Japan fighting hard in the air now with Frank Rs...
a.jpg
a.jpg (663.04 KiB) Viewed 1407 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 subs, some pesky single ship IJN destroyers, and other troop and ship movement
a.jpg
a.jpg (804.35 KiB) Viewed 1404 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Hmm...no float plane losses.
a.jpg
a.jpg (67.35 KiB) Viewed 1402 times
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 Oct 13, 2023 6:20 am Ouch on the battlewagons getting flotation damage. Where's your nearest 50,000-ton dry dock? Either that or taking Singapore will come in handy. At least the CAs can go to Saigon.

Regarding Cam Ranh Bay, my understanding is that a shock attack gives the enemy two shots at your forces. If he's only disabling two devices per shot, you might as well shock attack the remnants and be done with them earlier.

Also, a strat move from Bangkok to Phnom Penh (or whereever the railhead is), a new strat move from there to Saigon by main road for those that can do it [EDIT: I checked the manual and could only find that Japanese units cannot strat move on main roads, while Allied can. Still, by memory, USN, USMC and Chinese, and possibly some CW, units cannot move by main road in strat mode--which is supposed to be a reflection of their lack of trucks], then a strat up to Vinh or points north is a pretty efficient way to move units in that area. With the possible exception of units that cannot strat move by main road, it'll be faster than moving by ship. Not sure if they fixed it, but you could strat move USN/USMC/Chinese units by road by setting "all to march" once you've set an eligible unit to strat move. That'd be cheating, though.

[EDIT: I like Vicky Point as a supply drop-off point once the port is decent and/or it has a lot of naval support for unloading. If it's safe, Georgetown also works. If Rangoon hasn't been working well for you, then Moulmein isn't going to be better.]

Cheers,
CB
SR mode for troops on roads is always tricky....as it isn't the same for rails often times it is better to simply move.
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

RangerJoe wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2023 4:38 pm If you don't mind a suggestion on possibly slowing your opponents fleets down and maybe damaging/sinking ships, put submarine laid minefields 1 hex away from Singapore where there is no base, another minefield where the river outlet from Palembang and the sea combine, even between those two islands where you see the enemy fleets. A damaged ship in port probably won't be added to any task forces. Then he may also direct minesweeping TFs away from those hexes or have his ships avoid the hexes. If you have attack bombers available with Naval Search over the area, have the bombers fly at 100 feet with a range one hex short of the enemy base. Or even have night naval attacks with Naval Search to possibly do damage and hopefully slow down the enemy or break his task forces apart with ships detached in Escort TFs.

Against the computer, I keep hearing explosions and ship sirens . . .
Problem with players is they actually use their minesweepers... ;)
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 19244
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

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

Post by RangerJoe »

Lowpe wrote: Mon Oct 16, 2023 11:43 am
RangerJoe wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2023 4:38 pm If you don't mind a suggestion on possibly slowing your opponents fleets down and maybe damaging/sinking ships, put submarine laid minefields 1 hex away from Singapore where there is no base, another minefield where the river outlet from Palembang and the sea combine, even between those two islands where you see the enemy fleets. A damaged ship in port probably won't be added to any task forces. Then he may also direct minesweeping TFs away from those hexes or have his ships avoid the hexes. If you have attack bombers available with Naval Search over the area, have the bombers fly at 100 feet with a range one hex short of the enemy base. Or even have night naval attacks with Naval Search to possibly do damage and hopefully slow down the enemy or break his task forces apart with ships detached in Escort TFs.

Against the computer, I keep hearing explosions and ship sirens . . .
Problem with players is they actually use their minesweepers... ;)
True but they might have to find the mines first. If nothing else, it can give your attack aircraft some ships to play with. If an enemy fighter does a head on attack against an American attack bomber with lots of forward firepower or even a Beaufighter, who is likely to win?
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 »

The USN sends two DESRONs into Hong Kong Harbor...packed with IJN shipping.

[attachment=0]a.jpg[/attachment

Night Time Surface Combat, near Hong Kong at 77,61, Range 3,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CL Jintsu, Shell hits 11, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CL Isuzu
CL Yura, Shell hits 5
DD Suzunami
DD Minegumo
DD Kuretake, Shell hits 18, and is sunk

Allied Ships
DD Fletcher, Shell hits 4, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Eaton, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Saufley, Shell hits 4
DD Tjerk Hiddes

Reduced visibility due to Rain with 3% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Rain and 3% moonlight: 3,000 yards
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (243.24 KiB) Viewed 1273 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 second DESRON gets quickly evaded, without a torp being fired.
A20BismarckSea.jpg
A20BismarckSea.jpg (244.08 KiB) Viewed 1272 times
Night Time Surface Combat, near Hong Kong at 77,61, Range 3,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
SC Ch 19, Shell hits 1
SC Ch 20
xAK Tatutaki Maru
xAK Tatumiya Maru
xAK Takaoka Maru, Shell hits 2
xAP Rakuyo Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire
xAP Atsuta Maru
xAP Teika Maru
SC Ch 47, Shell hits 11, and is sunk
xAP Suminoe Maru
xAP Yasaka Maru

Allied Ships
DD Beale
DD Boyd
DD Braine
DD Claxton

Poor visibility due to Rain with 3% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Rain and 3% moonlight: 3,000 yards
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

But fear not, True Believers....there is always another IJN task force hiding somewhere:
admiral.jpg
admiral.jpg (261.2 KiB) Viewed 1271 times
Night Time Surface Combat, near Hong Kong at 77,61, Range 2,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
PB Chitose Maru
PB Nagata Maru, Shell hits 7, heavy fires
PB Saiko Maru, Shell hits 4, heavy fires
PB Sozan Maru, Shell hits 19, heavy fires, heavy damage
TK Eiyo Maru
TK Hakko Maru
AMC Nosiro Maru
PB Eiko Maru #2, Shell hits 22, heavy fires, heavy damage
TK Oita Maru
TK Kenwa Maru, Shell hits 4, on fire
TK Kinrei Maru
TK Taijima Maru
TK Koho Maru
TK Katsukawa Maru
TK Okuni Maru
AMC Gokoku Maru, Shell hits 11, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
TK Meizan Maru, Torpedo hits 1, on fire

Allied Ships
DD Beale
DD Boyd
DD Braine
DD Claxton

Poor visibility due to Rain with 3% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Rain and 3% moonlight: 1,000 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 warships finally hunt down the lone IJN destroyers north of Borneo, HMS Cornwall doing good work:

Night Time Surface Combat, near Groot Natoena at 59,84, Range 5,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
DD Suzukaze

Allied Ships
DD Porter
DD Jupiter
DD Racehorse
DD Redoubt

Reduced sighting due to 3% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions and 3% moonlight: 5,000 yards

Day Time Surface Combat, near Groot Natoena at 58,84, Range 29,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
DD Suzukaze, Shell hits 2, heavy fires

Allied Ships
CA Cornwall
DD Bush
DD Dyson

Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions: 30,000 yards

Day Time Surface Combat, near Soebi-besar at 57,85, Range 23,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
DD Suzukaze, Shell hits 3, and is sunk

Allied Ships
CA Cornwall
DD Bush
DD Dyson

Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions: 30,000 yards

Day Time Surface Combat, near Kuching at 60,86, Range 19,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
DD Maikaze, Shell hits 3

Allied Ships
DD Porter
DD Jupiter
DD Racehorse
DD Redoubt, Shell hits 1, on fire

Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions: 30,000 yards
Day Time Surface Combat, near Groot Natoena at 58,84, Range 27,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
DD Maikaze, Shell hits 2, and is sunk

Allied Ships
CA Cornwall, Shell hits 1
DD Bush
DD Dyson

Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions: 30,000 yards
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 29,000 yards
CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese 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 »

Not too bad...
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (761.32 KiB) Viewed 1145 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Oct 28th 1943

First base on Hainan taken easily...


Ground combat at Kiungshan (71,61)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 6659 troops, 120 guns, 7 vehicles, Assault Value = 371

Defending force 394 troops, 43 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 3

Allied adjusted assault: 162

Japanese adjusted defense: 1

Allied assault odds: 162 to 1 (fort level 1)

Allied forces CAPTURE Kiungshan !!!

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-61-Id Tony: 5 destroyed

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

Japanese ground losses:
405 casualties reported
Squads: 46 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 23 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 52 (52 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units destroyed 1

Assaulting units:
25th Infantry Division

Defending units:
32nd Div /1
a.jpg
a.jpg (600.96 KiB) Viewed 1041 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

No doubt I rushed this attack....Didn't think I would attack today but even one extra day was too soon....got a good movement roll I guess. I had planned a trap here...the reinforcing full strength British Division is 22 miles away and may not make it to the battlefield in time. Japan loves to shock attack, and I surely expect one here tomorrow. And our HQc is still far away on the train. :o

Ground combat at Singapore (50,84)

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 40783 troops, 920 guns, 437 vehicles, Assault Value = 1200

Defending force 46179 troops, 407 guns, 71 vehicles, Assault Value = 1114

Allied adjusted assault: 71

Japanese adjusted defense: 2867

Allied assault odds: 1 to 40 (fort level 5)

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

Japanese ground losses:
358 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 64 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 9 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Vehicles lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
8448 casualties reported
Squads: 278 destroyed, 514 disabled
Non Combat: 5 destroyed, 63 disabled
Engineers: 71 destroyed, 39 disabled
Guns lost 225 (134 destroyed, 91 disabled)
Vehicles lost 23 (1 destroyed, 22 disabled)

Assaulting units:
9th Indian Division
7th Australian Division
11th (East African) Division
9th Australian Division
6th Mixed A/T Mtr Regiment

Defending units:
Tanaka
8th Malay Militia Regiment
83rd Naval Guard Unit
II/124th Infantry Battalion
21st Infantry Regiment
35th Division
16th Naval Guard Unit
25th Division
9th Infantry Regiment
9th Malay Militia Regiment
23rd AA Regiment
30th JNAF AF Unit
306th Ship Eng Coy
12th JAAF Base Force
17th JAAF AF Bn
44th Field AA Battalion
4th Ind Engineer Regiment
94th JAAF AF Bn /4
62nd JAAF AF Bn
38th Div /1
49th JNAF AF Unit
51st Field AA Battalion
39th Field Const Co
6th JNAF Coy
27th JAAF AF Bn
206th Ship Eng Coy
302nd Ship Eng Coy
16th Recon Regiment
8th JNAF Coy
42nd Infantry Rgt /3
a.jpg
a.jpg (304.8 KiB) Viewed 1039 times
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 »

Yeah, he'll have to balance whether its worth it or not, but he's almost certain to shock attack back with that result I think
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Oct 29, 1943

No attack at Singers, pity. The IJN fleets and air force evacuate...our subs nail some merchants and others but miss tankers three or four times and spot the Mutsu but fail to close with her.
a.jpg
a.jpg (304.08 KiB) Viewed 853 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Supply levels:

Hawaii: 1.4 million
Line Islands: 477k
Gilbert Islands: 300k
Indochina: 230k
Papua New Guinea: 160K
Burma: 126k
Dutch New Guinea: 102k
Sarawak (Brunei): 97K
New Britain: 83k
Solomon: 70k
Philippine Islands: 52k
Malaysia: 32k

China: 24k

600k at sea
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20557
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

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

Post by BBfanboy »

Looks like some of the IJN are headed to Palembang. Fuel up and head for Makassar Strait? You could mine between that island off Palembang and Sumatra to make that narrow channel more hazardous.
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: 19244
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

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

Post by RangerJoe »

BBfanboy wrote: Thu Oct 26, 2023 6:00 pm Looks like some of the IJN are headed to Palembang. Fuel up and head for Makassar Strait? You could mine between that island off Palembang and Sumatra to make that narrow channel more hazardous.
Put mines at the river outlet as well, they have to go through that hex!
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 »

Oct 30, 1943

Our subs extract another toll...nailing a medium size tanker and more.
a.jpg
a.jpg (371.79 KiB) Viewed 656 times
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”