Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies)

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: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies)

Post by Lowpe »

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

He can sail east out of the hex that you struck him at.

Thanks. I did spot that, but it would be very easy to miss.[&o]
User avatar
Mike Solli
Posts: 16368
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2000 8:00 am
Location: the flight deck of the Zuikaku

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies)

Post by Mike Solli »

No airbase at Umnak?
Image
Created by the amazing Dixie
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies)

Post by Lowpe »

Attu is 0, Adak is 4, Umnak to the best of my recollection is 0. I hope it didn't flip to 1 last turn, I forgot to check.

Three BB bombarded Adak, where I think the Saratoga and Warspite are hiding, but no hits on the ships in port there, only minor damage to the heavy fighter presence (airacobras and F4Fs).

Two bombardment of Attu and of course no infrastructure hits.

Some good infrastructure hits at Tabby

Night Naval bombardment of Tabiteuea at 137,134

Japanese Ships
BB Mutsu
BB Kirishima
BB Hiei
BB Haruna
CA Kako
CA Furutaka
CA Aoba
CA Kumano
CA Chokai

Allied ground losses:
407 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 8 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 36 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 5 disabled
Guns lost 13 (2 destroyed, 11 disabled)

Airbase hits 12
Airbase supply hits 4
Runway hits 30
Port hits 17
Port supply hits 3
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies)

Post by obvert »

This is bad for the Allies. Losing those APs will hurt in 43. The VP harvest is getting pretty good here too.

Do you know where the USN sailed? Are they North or East?
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies)

Post by Lowpe »

ORIGINAL: obvert

This is bad for the Allies. Losing those APs will hurt in 43. The VP harvest is getting pretty good here too.

Do you know where the USN sailed? Are they North or East?


Funny you should ask.[:D] No real damage, but during the day no retaliatory air strikes due to weather...3 BB is two surface groups just 3 hexes away...we shall see what the morrow brings.

And then this way further west...

Night Time Surface Combat, near Amchitka Island at 158,53, Range 2,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
BB Nagato, Shell hits 16, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Yukikaze
DD Hayashio, Shell hits 3, heavy fires
DD Shiranui
DD Amatsukaze, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Tokitsukaze, Shell hits 2, heavy fires
DD Tachikaze

Allied Ships
DD Jarvis, Shell hits 2
DD Craven, Shell hits 5, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Gridley, Shell hits 15, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD McCall, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk

Poor visibility due to Rain with 7% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Rain and 7% moonlight: 2,000 yards

Image
Attachments
manila.jpg
manila.jpg (115.04 KiB) Viewed 209 times
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies)

Post by obvert »

Whoah!! Wait a minute. What happened there? [X(]

Looks like the Allies took a page out of your book and sent in the dogs. The USN DDs did really well for this point in the war.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies)

Post by Lowpe »

ORIGINAL: obvert

Whoah!! Wait a minute. What happened there? [X(]

Looks like the Allies took a page out of your book and sent in the dogs. The USN DDs did really well for this point in the war.


I thought for sure he would have done it after the first day...took me by surprise here, as I didn't plan on it.

A little payback though...hope for more on the next day. Allies using Beasts and 2E bombers at 3K. More later.

Image
Attachments
manila.jpg
manila.jpg (78.87 KiB) Viewed 209 times
User avatar
Bif1961
Posts: 2014
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:52 pm
Location: Phenix City, Alabama

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies)

Post by Bif1961 »

Is it a good idea to keep 8 Japanese carriers in one TF? Doesn't tat affect their chances at coordinated strikes since he has about 400 AC in one TF?
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies)

Post by Lowpe »

ORIGINAL: Bif1961

Is it a good idea to keep 8 Japanese carriers in one TF? Doesn't tat affect their chances at coordinated strikes since he has about 400 AC in one TF?

What I am doing is super dangerous, and I don't want to risk having two CV TF end up in the wrong hex. The coordinated strike penalty isn't a 100% chance...

There is 450 planes in the KB right now, and I believe I am super close to absolutely breaking the morale of the Allies so much so that they are going to do something truly desperate. I hope I can weather the storm.
User avatar
Bif1961
Posts: 2014
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:52 pm
Location: Phenix City, Alabama

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies)

Post by Bif1961 »

I find by setting the fast carrier TF to follow the slower carrier TF and both set to zero reaction distance that they almost always stay together.
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies)

Post by Lowpe »

ORIGINAL: Bif1961

I find by setting the fast carrier TF to follow the slower carrier TF and both set to zero reaction distance that they almost always stay together.


For this operation "almost always" isn't good enough.[:)]

User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies)

Post by Lowpe »

I think this game might be on a knife's edge right now...

I seem to recall that the Allies really need to preserve this early AP shipping capability...

In addition, with two American fleet carriers out of action for a while, that really spells doom for the 40,000 troops (including the 2nd Marine Division) at Tabby, and my recent invasion of Builder in the Aleutians most likely spells doom for the 20,000 troops there.

Combined with the loss of the 18th British Division, 5 Commonwealth Brigades or Regiments, 4 Australian Brigades, all that wonderful British AA at Ceylon.... and with Clark ready to fall any day, the Allies are worried about where Japan will go next.

The potential loss of shipping hiding in dot bases in the Aleutians... & of course I am unsure how much is trapped north of the Aleutians, low on fuel.

And, China is falling super fast..

Plus I don't think the Allies like the mod with the Aussies being restricted to brigade size.

That the game comes down to this: the Allies will either surge everything they have at the KB, or seek negotiations. Personally I think he will surge his six battleships at me knowing the KB lacks torpedoes. But he might not be in position to do that.

What a strange game, prior to June of 1942 Japan was doing well in China and pulled off Ceylon...but the Allies had preserved every ship larger than a destroyer and I thought Japan would be in a world of hurt starting in early 1943.

User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies)

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I think this game might be on a knife's edge right now...

I seem to recall that the Allies really need to preserve this early AP shipping capability...
Very much so! The early cadre of USN AP's forms a large core of APA's in '43 (and probably early '44, but I've never counted). They really have to be protected.

In addition, with two American fleet carriers out of action for a while, that really spells doom for the 40,000 troops (including the 2nd Marine Division) at Tabby, and my recent invasion of Builder in the Aleutians most likely spells doom for the 20,000 troops there.

Combined with the loss of the 18th British Division, 5 Commonwealth Brigades or Regiments, 4 Australian Brigades, all that wonderful British AA at Ceylon.... and with Clark ready to fall any day, the Allies are worried about where Japan will go next.

The potential loss of shipping hiding in dot bases in the Aleutians... & of course I am unsure how much is trapped north of the Aleutians, low on fuel.

And, China is falling super fast..

Plus I don't think the Allies like the mod with the Aussies being restricted to brigade size.
I'm playing the new DBB 28-C with BDE organization for the Aussies and, although we haven't yet seen combat where any differences could matter, I am not worried about it. A while back MichaelM made changes to the casualty routines which very nicely (IMO) did away with the old problem of small units taking disproportionate damage all the time. Also, when smaller units are destroyed (by sheer weight of numbers in some battles) you can now buy them back and rebuild them. The only difference there is a few PP.

That the game comes down to this: the Allies will either surge everything they have at the KB, or seek negotiations. Personally I think he will surge his six battleships at me knowing the KB lacks torpedoes. But he might not be in position to do that.

What a strange game, prior to June of 1942 Japan was doing well in China and pulled off Ceylon...but the Allies had preserved every ship larger than a destroyer and I thought Japan would be in a world of hurt starting in early 1943.

User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9304
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies)

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: Bif1961

Is it a good idea to keep 8 Japanese carriers in one TF? Doesn't tat affect their chances at coordinated strikes since he has about 400 AC in one TF?

In my experience, I've suffered a fragmented strike from having ~680 planes in one TF (that's about 8-10 IJN flight decks) only a couple of times in dozens or perhaps hundreds of instances.

It is a better idea than splitting into separate TFs.
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9304
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies)

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I think this game might be on a knife's edge right now...

I seem to recall that the Allies really need to preserve this early AP shipping capability...

In addition, with two American fleet carriers out of action for a while, that really spells doom for the 40,000 troops (including the 2nd Marine Division) at Tabby, and my recent invasion of Builder in the Aleutians most likely spells doom for the 20,000 troops there.

Combined with the loss of the 18th British Division, 5 Commonwealth Brigades or Regiments, 4 Australian Brigades, all that wonderful British AA at Ceylon.... and with Clark ready to fall any day, the Allies are worried about where Japan will go next.

The potential loss of shipping hiding in dot bases in the Aleutians... & of course I am unsure how much is trapped north of the Aleutians, low on fuel.

And, China is falling super fast..

Plus I don't think the Allies like the mod with the Aussies being restricted to brigade size.

That the game comes down to this: the Allies will either surge everything they have at the KB, or seek negotiations. Personally I think he will surge his six battleships at me knowing the KB lacks torpedoes. But he might not be in position to do that.

What a strange game, prior to June of 1942 Japan was doing well in China and pulled off Ceylon...but the Allies had preserved every ship larger than a destroyer and I thought Japan would be in a world of hurt starting in early 1943.


He's fine, or will be fine.

I lost large chunks of my pre-43 APs and AKs. So many come in later that it doesn't matter that much. It delays things somewhat in 1943, but it wasn't really my limiting factor. Sufficient air support was.

Restricted to brigade size in Australia is a bigger blow.

China can fall. It's fine. It just depends on how long, and how much you build it up, and even then... he can retake it.


It's all about avoiding AV in 1943 or January 1944. Obviously that's possible, but it's not that much more possible for you to achieve today than it was in December 1941.

He could lose everything he has in the Aleutians and still fight you hard in 1943.
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies)

Post by Lowpe »

Wargamr has a strong history of taking a beating and coming back very strong.
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies)

Post by Lowpe »

So the Allies are punching back...here the bombers selected the tiny engineer unit (aviation eng), they are the poor replacements to the same unit that originally defended Attu and were bombarded out of existence.

Here all the bombers come in at 3000 feet. This is a bad precedent to set, and bodes nothing but ill for Japan long term. Counter B17 and then B29 bombing very low is very difficult. AA, Balloons, Radar and good fighters are needed. Of course none of that is present here yet but at least tiny Unyo is here...she had to make a flank speed run but arrived just in time.

The Unyo carries a decent size fighter sentai on her, 27 planes, and quite frankly only 1/3rd where flying low, the rest was layered looking for fighter sweeps. I have always struggled with what to do with these little slow escort carriers. They really make pitiful ASW platforms in hunter killer groups. They work as support for the KB, but simply providing extra fighter protection of ports is a good job for them...as happened here. They are too slow to raid with.

Image
Attachments
manila.jpg
manila.jpg (114.91 KiB) Viewed 208 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies)

Post by Lowpe »

Lots of hijinks here in the north, KB seems safe now except for subs and potential PT boat attacks. Mavis will start flying from Builders providing lots of intel...and she has more than enough fuel to play, but sorties are getting low and there is still some torpedoes, I had to juggle squadrons to unlock them, but the expected Allied battleship raid didn't materialize. Suddenly having torpedoes would surely have greatly surprised the Allies.

The KB fought off one low level B17 strike, then the next day another targeted an escorting battleship (Ise or Hyuga). Two other battleships are back at Builders, rearmed and refueled, while Nagato is on the slow road to Honshu and the yards.

We have at least 17 ships penned in at Adak, but it will be a tough nut to crack.

In 4 days the 1st and 2nd Tank Divisions arrive, and their elements in play have been prepping for Adak and Attu, along with some divisions, headquarters, artillery etc.

I would like to get Unyo at Attu and shoot down some of the PBYs which I think are being air lifted out, but I worry about mines, and it would mean a flank speed run by Hiryu to provide air cover over Builders.



Image
Attachments
manila2.jpg
manila2.jpg (141.76 KiB) Viewed 208 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies)

Post by Lowpe »

Game date on graphic.

Will be ready to counter invade in 30 days here.

Image
Attachments
manila3.jpg
manila3.jpg (238.93 KiB) Viewed 208 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies)

Post by Lowpe »

The northern pincer just got all the troops, sans a HQ, to retreat and now the road to Kienko is over burdened with disorganized, beaten troops, there might be 40 corps in only a few hexes there. I figure in a month the Type 1 Medium tanks and IJA troops will be entering Kienko.

The southern pincer might very well be called off...as I was planning on using the 1st and 2nd tank divisions to push up thru there. Or it might simply get troops from Luzon. I want to do it, so I can push on Kunming and Paoshan from two directions.

Image
Attachments
manila.jpg
manila.jpg (305.23 KiB) Viewed 208 times
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”