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
RangerJoe
Posts: 18285
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

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

Post by RangerJoe »

Yes, they use fewer supplies such as bombs but more gasoline which is also in the supplies.

Just a suggestion though, send the B-29s to a closer base on a railroad then the next turn move all but one unit to their base which is not on the same railroad. The one unit left takes all of the fragments and then, if needed, relocates to another base on the railroad line. Those damaged planes will go into Reserve where they can be pulled out while the losing units can then take replacements including pilots. I do something like this when moving B-17s, LB-30s, and B-24s from the West Coast to the Pacific where the action is.
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 »

Too gamey by far! :roll: :D I am telling a story here, how long term plans, and maneuver can win the war....not who can abuse the engine the best. :lol:
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Turn is finished and away....more of the same, bringing up forces, readying another invasion, shipping supplies and sweeping, here and there. Bombing Luzon....trying pinpoint night strikes on Shanghai heavy industry just testing tactics. Plus bombardments.
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 18285
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

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

Post by RangerJoe »

Lowpe wrote: Tue Jul 02, 2024 8:30 pm Too gamey by far! :roll: :D I am telling a story here, how long term plans, and maneuver can win the war....not who can abuse the engine the best. :lol:
I only play against the AI! The AI does NOT complain!
:lol: :lol: :lol:
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 »

Feb 6th, 1944

Quiet turn...a few sweeps, lots of bombardments, lots of troop movement. Have to open up a hexside at Wuchow.
a.jpg
a.jpg (3.78 MiB) Viewed 539 times
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: Tue Jul 02, 2024 11:19 pm
Lowpe wrote: Tue Jul 02, 2024 8:30 pm Too gamey by far! :roll: :D I am telling a story here, how long term plans, and maneuver can win the war....not who can abuse the engine the best. :lol:
I only play against the AI! The AI does NOT complain!
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Good point! :D
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Feb 8, 1944

I have deliberately put the 1st Cav (yank) and a Chinese Corp (just infantry) in an unpleasant position at Wuchow....but given Wuchow's defenses, I am taking advantage of it to attrit Japan's fighter force...so far great results over two days, our troops are holding up very nicely under moderate bombing. I just hope our tanks break in prior to whatever retreats back from the hex SW of Wuchow. I will trade some land losses for favorable fighter attrition -- especially Chinese.

I hit two important railyards in central China....most of the enemy supply has to go thru there. I am not really sure if this does impact the supply line at all...but it is nice to think that it does. :D One squadron of heavies hit both, 3 Oscars bleed over too late at Hwainan and we did good damage, I like the supply hits, but there is probably almost no supply stockpiled there especially given the runway size and spotting time:

Allied aircraft losses
B-24J Liberator: 1 damaged

Airbase hits 5
Airbase supply hits 3
Runway hits 29

Aircraft Attacking:
7 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 5000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
Allied aircraft
B-24D1 Liberator x 7

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 3
Airbase supply hits 4
Runway hits 39

Aircraft Attacking:
7 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 5000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb

I always thought that these one off, milk type attacks, are one of the better uses of heavy bombers.

Another quiet day...lost some PT boats that were out of ammo at Oosthaven, but they protected the troop transports and we got a full brigade landed and supplies right under Japan's nose so to speak.

Lots of ship bombardments, some sweeps, heavy bombing on Luzon (we capture another base in southern Luzon, enemy shattered by air strikes and no supply). More troop movement, and supplies, etc.

Foochow Level 8 (99%) runway. Ningpo, and Amoy should also increase another size tomorrow.
a.jpg
a.jpg (593.25 KiB) Viewed 517 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

3 ARDs, the small 3 sized ones, arrive at Amoy and are put to work on the Subs and Destroyers...destroyers first. Another AR arrived too, but suffered some minor damage so that needs fixing before she gets to work. Our scratch built repair facilities at Amoy (P6) is doing very well cleaning up all types of system damage very quickly. :D
a.jpg
a.jpg (627.9 KiB) Viewed 511 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Will have all of southern Luzon shortly...the defenders are simply shattered by Allied air power.

Ground combat at Atimonan (80,79)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 1236 troops, 8 guns, 24 vehicles, Assault Value = 43

Defending force 849 troops, 11 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1

Allied adjusted assault: 20

Japanese adjusted defense: 1

Allied assault odds: 20 to 1 (fort level 0)

Allied forces CAPTURE Atimonan !!!

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

Japanese ground losses:
32 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 4 (4 destroyed, 0 disabled)

Assaulting units:
50th Cmbt Engineer Regiment

Defending units:
63rd Naval Guard Unit
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Using British landing craft and small units we are slowly conquering the SRA....hard to find time for the clicks here ;) . Soon we will be invading Java. All of this should be low risk now...

Ground combat at Toboali (50,93)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 143 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 8

Defending force 0 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 0

Allied adjusted assault: 3

Japanese adjusted defense: 1

Allied assault odds: 3 to 1 (fort level 0)

Allied forces CAPTURE Toboali !!!

Combat modifiers
Attacker: leaders(-)

Assaulting units:
2/1st Ind Coy
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

The FM-2 Wildcat is showing up. If I recall correctly, this is the outsourced Grumman plane....they swapped to larger horsepower but not supercharged engine, replaced a clear panel for mechanics, and raised the tail something or other to make Jeep landings and take offs easier (or was it for storage?) according to a docent at an air museum at least. ;) Anyhow, the salient game point:



Boy, oh, boy, as a JFB I loved getting my George and Frank sweepers into these guys!!! :D
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 18285
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

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

Post by RangerJoe »

If you don't have ships designated to the repair vessels but to the pierside, the computer will assign the repair vessels as needed to repair the damaged ships. I have seen this in the OPs reports, including damaged ships going into ARDs as needed. Then the ships can also get help from the port, naval squads, and the crew itself. This might actually speed up the repairs, especially for the whole lot of them plus there are fewer clicks.


I had just posted the link only elsewhere.
"A General Motors ­built version of the F4F received a marginal boost when a Wright 1,350-hp single-row radial was installed in place of the 1,200-hp Pratt & Whitney. The first production models of the new variant, designated the FM-2, arrived in late 1943. The FM-2’s new engine, coupled with a 350-pound weight reduction, produced improvements in performance over the F4F. In fact, postwar tests revealed the late-model A6M5 Zero to be only 13 mph faster."
https://www.historynet.com/grumman-f4f- ... ld-war-ii/
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 »

RangerJoe wrote: Wed Jul 03, 2024 1:48 pm If you don't have ships designated to the repair vessels but to the pierside, the computer will assign the repair vessels as needed to repair the damaged ships. I have seen this in the OPs reports, including damaged ships going into ARDs as needed. Then the ships can also get help from the port, naval squads, and the crew itself. This might actually speed up the repairs, especially for the whole lot of them plus there are fewer clicks.


I had just posted the link only elsewhere.
"A General Motors ­built version of the F4F received a marginal boost when a Wright 1,350-hp single-row radial was installed in place of the 1,200-hp Pratt & Whitney. The first production models of the new variant, designated the FM-2, arrived in late 1943. The FM-2’s new engine, coupled with a 350-pound weight reduction, produced improvements in performance over the F4F. In fact, postwar tests revealed the late-model A6M5 Zero to be only 13 mph faster."
https://www.historynet.com/grumman-f4f- ... ld-war-ii/
Less clicks, but not optimum repairs, sadly.

Good article, thanks.
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Tokyo....66 units, 650 guns spotted, and lots of planes! Oh, my. ;) I have identified so far 200 points of night fighter factories spread across Tokyo, Osaka, and Kobe.

By maintaining a night bombing campaign (with the British) the entire game, I have certainly telegraphed my intention to pursue this mini game. It would have been an absolute shame to play this long, and find out that Japan totally neglected its night fighter research.

So far, I have noticed the radar equipped heavy bombers certainly stray a lot less, and more bombers make it over the target....anecdotal.

Normally you lose one heavy bomber for each night fighter lost so Japan has production in its favor. There are c20+ night fighter squadrons around, but the IJN is usually smaller unless they get supersized.
a.jpg
a.jpg (168.05 KiB) Viewed 419 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Shanghai should be a pretty good test of concept. Foochow, af9 is 9 hexes away, and we have a runway adjacent to maintain control of the skies. I plan on testing out night bombing with radar equipped planes using heavies, and medium bombers (most NZ and British bombers have radar). After testing that, we will progress to TB and DB during the day. I can't bring myself to firebomb Shanghai so we will target only HI and LI.

I really don't fancy flying our lightly gunned radar equipped planes into Nagasaki as of yet. I would do that in conjunction with B24Js...

My memory is that it is a numbers game on night bombing and you need to have patience.

I know i need lots of aviation support and supplies.
a.jpg
a.jpg (553.23 KiB) Viewed 407 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

A few destroyer raids, and a messed up minefield dropped by British subs...
a.jpg
a.jpg (1.15 MiB) Viewed 405 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Feb 8, 1944

100% Moonlight,clear skies, Petes as CAP, 9 DL, 2 out of 3 waves had radar -- doesn't get better than this. Interestingly, the night bombardment comes after the night bombing....and it was particularly effective. Synergy....a rising DL improves all efforts. ;)

The last wave does the damage....or the first wave where the cap was pretty much gone.

Night Naval bombardment of Shanghai at 92,55

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-IIIa Oscar: 1 damaged
F1M2 Pete: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
PB Iwate Maru, Shell hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage

Allied Ships
CA Chicago
CA Northampton

Japanese ground losses:
563 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Non Combat: 6 destroyed, 47 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 4 disabled

Airbase hits 9
Runway hits 8
Port hits 3

CA Chicago firing at Shanghai
SOC-1 Seagull acting as spotter for CA Northampton
CA Northampton firing at Shanghai
a.jpg
a.jpg (672.1 KiB) Viewed 386 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Raiding destroyers...

our DESRON going after enemy ASW misses and returns to Ningpo fine...

our DESRON going after Naha enters to port (I assume, no mines hit :D ) and makes it bake to harbor...but we don't have enough fighters on duty to counter the recon kamikazes...both destroyers sunk.

Morning Air attack on TF, near Miyako-jima at 91,66

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 176 NM, estimated altitude 31,480 feet.
Estimated time to target is 45 minutes

Japanese aircraft
D4Y1-C Judy x 8

Allied aircraft
FM-1 Wildcat x 10

Japanese aircraft losses
D4Y1-C Judy: 4 destroyed

No Allied losses

Allied Ships
DD Sproston, Kamikaze hits 4, on fire, heavy damage

Aircraft Attacking:
5 x D4Y1-C Judy flying as kamikaze

CAP engaged:
VMF-114 with FM-1 Wildcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 8 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 7000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 11 minutes

Not sure if these were Kamikazes or just low altitude bombers:

Morning Air attack on TF, near Miyako-jima at 91,66

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 25 NM, estimated altitude 6,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
E13A1 Jake x 8

Allied aircraft
FM-1 Wildcat x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
E13A1 Jake: 4 destroyed

No Allied losses

CAP engaged:
VMF-114 with FM-1 Wildcat (6 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(8 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
6 plane(s) intercepting now.
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 7000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 23 minutes


Third wave:
Morning Air attack on TF, near Miyako-jima at 91,66

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 63 NM, estimated altitude 35,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 16 minutes

Japanese aircraft
D4Y1-C Judy x 4

Allied aircraft
FM-1 Wildcat x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
D4Y1-C Judy: 1 destroyed

No Allied losses

CAP engaged:
VMF-114 with FM-1 Wildcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters to 3000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 26 minutes

The killer wave:

Morning Air attack on TF, near Miyako-jima at 91,66

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 178 NM, estimated altitude 39,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 49 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 7
Ki-46-II Dinah x 8
Ki-84r Frank x 9

Allied aircraft
FM-1 Wildcat x 1

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-46-II Dinah: 5 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
FM-1 Wildcat: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
DD John Rodgers, Kamikaze hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Sproston, Kamikaze hits 2, and is sunk

Aircraft Attacking:
8 x Ki-46-II Dinah flying as kamikaze

CAP engaged:
VMF-114 with FM-1 Wildcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(2 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 7000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 20 minutes

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DD John Rodgers
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DD Sproston
a.jpg
a.jpg (1.37 MiB) Viewed 382 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

So the loss of the two destroyers of course hurts, but rather them, than a supply or troop convoy or a jeep carrier or a CVL. Lots of information garnered. No mines at Naha, High and Low attacks, some coordination...

I lost 1 Wildcat...Japan lost 11 Dinahs and 11 Judy and 8 Jakes...I need sufficient radar warning and planes to actually shoot the kamikazes down and those recons are tough....well, no armor, manuever only 16, but 360 top speed...a bit higher than our Wildcats! :D The Dinah II makes for a tougher kamikaze...higher durability, 375 top speed, maneuver higher at 24, no armor. This will be a challenge as the fighters have to be strong enough to actually deal with wave after wave. I at least got 2 exp 80 pilots out of the fight and two more aces.

I may have to dedicate Fighter Bombers to the effort to stop them...they at least have cannons. I had been hoping to use a combination of Hurricanes and Wildcats...FB that might work: Hurricanes with cannons, Mosquito, P39s that can get high enough...P39s seem like the answer along with Lightnings. I will experiment some more. ;)
a.jpg
a.jpg (577.45 KiB) Viewed 375 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 relief column didn't make it...struggling thru the woods, where Wuchow is open terrain (I may change maps ;) ).

Anyhow, damage is done the Chinese infantry and losses won't be bad if we open the hexside this turn...but it will be iffy. Still, we cleared the Guards Tank Division out of the x3 terrain where it was chewing up our infantry divisions.
a.jpg
a.jpg (802.13 KiB) Viewed 371 times

Ground combat at Wuchow (76,57)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 38363 troops, 455 guns, 788 vehicles, Assault Value = 1368

Defending force 15695 troops, 126 guns, 105 vehicles, Assault Value = 531

Japanese adjusted assault: 909

Allied adjusted defense: 90

Japanese assault odds: 10 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: preparation(-), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
363 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 87 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 12 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Guns lost 11 (1 destroyed, 10 disabled)
Vehicles lost 55 (10 destroyed, 45 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
2751 casualties reported
Squads: 11 destroyed, 257 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 31 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 19 disabled
Guns lost 49 (7 destroyed, 42 disabled)
Vehicles lost 11 (1 destroyed, 10 disabled)

Assaulting units:
11th Tank Regiment
19th Tank Regiment
23rd Ind.Mixed Brigade
5th Ind.Mixed Brigade
9th Armored Car Co
32nd Division
3rd South Seas Det.
15th Tank Regiment
14th Tank Regiment
68th Ind.Infantry Battalion
13th Ind.Infantry Brigade
Guards Tank Division
12th RF Gun Battalion
22nd Ind.Mtn Gun Battalion
30th Field Artillery Regiment
4th RF Gun Battalion
14th RF Gun (Pack) Battalion
11th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
88th JAAF AF Bn

Defending units:
1st (Spec) Cavalry Division
79th Chinese Corps
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”