BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
ny59giants
Posts: 9902
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured!

Post by ny59giants »

Yes, NY - my question was whether it is worth converting some of the Tojo's that doesn't auto convert!

There was a thread that mentioned the "B" model was not that good and it was best to get R&D working to move the "C" model forward asap. I know you can go forward to a newer model, but I have to try to see if I can go back without any cost (time and supplies).
[center]Image[/center]
d0mbo
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:10 am
Location: Holland

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured!

Post by d0mbo »

The accuracy of the large 37mm gun on the tojo-B is very low, so there has been quite some debate on their usefulness!
 
janh
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:06 pm

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured!

Post by janh »

ORIGINAL: PzB
Why?
Because it never was done doesn't mean it couldn't have been done?
It's certainly stretching it, but so is moving the entire Royal Navy to the Central Pacific!

I wouldn't say it is gamey, as there is only the "doctrine" of that time that would have forbidden it. Or maybe not even that, but the Admiral in charge would at least have had a hard time getting through with it. Technically, physically, i.e. infrastructure-wise it is probably even easier to have just one plane type on a ship than several.

Obviously also the idea of putting twin-engined bombers on CV's stripped of even their CAP fighters got through, although it probably wasn't easy to convince the upper echelons I would bet. Though it really pushed the limits of the CV capabilities, and the thinking of the time, it worked out. Who at that time would have expected this? And imagine it hadn't happened, but this game engine would model it exactly (as historically achieved), would we now also be arguing that it is gamey since it hadn't happened?

I think it is as little gamey as is RN in CENTPAC, use of US CV's only in big groups, any kind of Sir Robin, or a Japanese invasion of Australia. All that would fall under the same "limits" of doctrine, political goals etc.

I think putting just fighters is doable, but I am not sure is the best tactic: If just a few single TBF or SBD get through, and score lucky hits, which is likely, your carriers it light up like paper, but you won't have a chance to return the favor... On the other hand, depleting his VF/VB/VT pools could indeed be equivalent to disabling his CV?

In any case, it probably would be fair to convey "a" message to Andy that you consider "such tactics" not gamey, so he can't voice his concerns -- but how to do so without showing your exact intentions?
User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured!

Post by castor troy »

ORIGINAL: d0mbo

The accuracy of the large 37mm gun on the tojo-B is very low, so there has been quite some debate on their usefulness!


the enemy in my PBEM has recently employed Tojo II-b and they seem to work just fine, at least as well as the II-a.
User avatar
Hortlund
Posts: 2162
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2000 8:00 am

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured!

Post by Hortlund »

ORIGINAL: PzB

Why?

Because it never was done doesn't mean it couldn't have been done?
It's certainly stretching it, but so is moving the entire Royal Navy to the Central Pacific!

Because it is exploiting the game engine. Using only fighters on a CV will let that CV (not to mention TF) put up more fighters in the air that was physically possible in real life.
The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..
User avatar
SoliInvictus202
Posts: 367
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:24 pm
Location: Austria

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured!

Post by SoliInvictus202 »

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

ORIGINAL: PzB

Why?

Because it never was done doesn't mean it couldn't have been done?
It's certainly stretching it, but so is moving the entire Royal Navy to the Central Pacific!

Because it is exploiting the game engine. Using only fighters on a CV will let that CV (not to mention TF) put up more fighters in the air that was physically possible in real life.

how so? - who says that the airgroups stationed on a CV must include Fighters and Bombers (of whatever sort) ?

how many pure bombers are stationed on a CV nowadays?

R.
User avatar
Hortlund
Posts: 2162
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2000 8:00 am

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured!

Post by Hortlund »

ORIGINAL: SoliInvictus202

how so? - who says that the airgroups stationed on a CV must include Fighters and Bombers (of whatever sort) ?

how many pure bombers are stationed on a CV nowadays?

R.

In real life, a CV could not launch its entire airwing at once, launching a single strike package took ages (and the ability to put up a certain-size-strike package was dependent on the possibility to lauch aircraft with longer range before shorter ranged ones), standing CAP was relatively small and replacing a CAP with a new CAP was a huge logistical undertaking.

When putting up a CV CAP, the game engine does a number of checks....leadership, experience, morale, etc checks, and based on those rolls puts up a fraction of the avaliable fighters. If a CV is loaded with nothing but fighters, those numbers become very ahistorical. In other words, 1/4th of 18 fighters is something completely different than 1/4th of 72 fighters.

Oh, and nowadays != ww2.
The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..
User avatar
SoliInvictus202
Posts: 367
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:24 pm
Location: Austria

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured!

Post by SoliInvictus202 »

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

ORIGINAL: SoliInvictus202

how so? - who says that the airgroups stationed on a CV must include Fighters and Bombers (of whatever sort) ?

how many pure bombers are stationed on a CV nowadays?

R.

In real life, a CV could not launch its entire airwing at once, launching a single strike package took ages (and the ability to put up a certain-size-strike package was dependent on the possibility to lauch aircraft with longer range before shorter ranged ones), standing CAP was relatively small and replacing a CAP with a new CAP was a huge logistical undertaking.

When putting up a CV CAP, the game engine does a number of checks....leadership, experience, morale, etc checks, and based on those rolls puts up a fraction of the avaliable fighters. If a CV is loaded with nothing but fighters, those numbers become very ahistorical. In other words, 1/4th of 18 fighters is something completely different than 1/4th of 72 fighters.

Oh, and nowadays != ww2.

I was purely talking about the fact that you could station fighters only on a carrier - I am not talking about strike packages.... - that is a totally different issue! - you wouldn't use these fighters offensively anyway!


I agree with you on all the points you've mentioned - but if a Commander decides to put only fighters on deck - then he may as well do so!
I wasn't talking of then putting the CAP of each Carrier to 100% -

and the nowadays != ww2 - well - that was just to make the point that there is no "rule" to have all plane types aboard! - which is what many mentioned in the prior posts...that they couldn't find a "historical" reference....

having studied Military history - well...if it can be done, and if it was necessary to do it - then it would be done in war!

R.
User avatar
PzB74
Posts: 5069
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2000 8:00 am
Location: No(r)way

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured!

Post by PzB74 »

Good points guys! [:)]

If they hadn't put B-25s on a carrier in WWII I'm 100% certain that most people would have argued that it was gamey to do so in this game as well.
Far from certain that I will create a carrier fighter force, but I have already placed pure fighter wings on some light carriers.
- I definetly have to come up with new tactices if I don't want to loose this game in the next year.

The game engine is not quite historical so we just have to abstract it as good as we can, that's the answer for most difficult question [:D]

So if anyone has a good idea...let me know [;)]

I've heard that the 40mm guns on the Tojo are fairly good, accuracy of 12.
Don't need that many hits to seriously damage an enemy bomber.
Image

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured!

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: PzB

Yes, NY - my question was whether it is worth converting some of the Tojo's that doesn't auto convert!

Thx for the input, I'm just asking the question; is it gamey or should players be allowed to freely choose how to equip their carriers?
Andy says that he's against House Rules in general, we only have some...exceptions.

IMO not gamey.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured!

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: SoliInvictus202

for example I see people complaining about the increased ASW power of Japanese Escorts in the late war - that they actually attack and sink subs, just like the Allies do - that's something I don't understand: why complain about it? and say that the game is bugged? - if a Jap player escorts his convoys properly (which they didn't in the real war) then he should be rewarded for it! - if you're playing the Allied you can't expect to get the same result and tactics which were used in real war! [:-]

One issue that is legitimately questioned is the effectiveness of various air assets against naval and ground targets. It seems like air ASW can, with highly trained pilots, go beyond what the technology supported. The same seems to be true with naval attacks (bomb and torp), ground bombing, and airfield bombing. I have not seen or heard of the same problem for port bombing, but maybe it manifests itself differently.

Note that I am talking about *BOTH* sides. My suspicion, which I posted in a couple of other threads, is that pilot skill provides too much of a bonus when it gets above roughly 70. It might be an improvement to make the benefit of pilot skill have a greater degree of diminishing returns when above about 70. This is really something that only the developers can ferret out, so I hope they are looking at it.
User avatar
SoliInvictus202
Posts: 367
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:24 pm
Location: Austria

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured!

Post by SoliInvictus202 »

ORIGINAL: witpqs
ORIGINAL: SoliInvictus202

for example I see people complaining about the increased ASW power of Japanese Escorts in the late war - that they actually attack and sink subs, just like the Allies do - that's something I don't understand: why complain about it? and say that the game is bugged? - if a Jap player escorts his convoys properly (which they didn't in the real war) then he should be rewarded for it! - if you're playing the Allied you can't expect to get the same result and tactics which were used in real war! [:-]

One issue that is legitimately questioned is the effectiveness of various air assets against naval and ground targets. It seems like air ASW can, with highly trained pilots, go beyond what the technology supported. The same seems to be true with naval attacks (bomb and torp), ground bombing, and airfield bombing. I have not seen or heard of the same problem for port bombing, but maybe it manifests itself differently.

Note that I am talking about *BOTH* sides. My suspicion, which I posted in a couple of other threads, is that pilot skill provides too much of a bonus when it gets above roughly 70. It might be an improvement to make the benefit of pilot skill have a greater degree of diminishing returns when above about 70. This is really something that only the developers can ferret out, so I hope they are looking at it.

indeed - I think we are experiencing many differences to the actual war, also due to the fact that so many players heavily invest into ASW training from the start - which the Japs didn't....

and it's very true - to exaggerate a little (after what I've read Sallys seem to work best for that job, which is also a little odd): only because you train a B-17 squadron up t 70 ASW shouldn't mean that it should sink and or attack a sub each time it comes across one, flying at 1000 feet first of all [8|]

R.

EDIT: I need to look up some figures....Monday maybe when I have access to the University-library....


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

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured!

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: SoliInvictus202

indeed - I think we are experiencing many differences to the actual war, also due to the fact that so many players heavily invest into ASW training from the start - which the Japs didn't....

and it's very true - to exaggerate a little (after what I've read Sallys seem to work best for that job): only because you train a B-17 squadron up t 70 ASW should mean that it should sink and or attack a sub each time it comes across one, flying at 1000 feet first of all [8|]

R.

Exactly - the pilot skill should (when super-expert) at most allow performance to have a chance (die roll) of being up to the limit of the technology. The hit rate on air bases, ships, subs, and ground troops seems to rise too high. I say seem because it's really hard to tell and I really do believe only developer testing (because they know various internal variables that we are not privy to) can really sort out the matter.

If we call for targeting changes just on 4EB, or just on Betties with torps, etc. we might be missing the real issue.
User avatar
aprezto
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:08 pm

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured!

Post by aprezto »

I think I'd like to sidestep the issue of gameness and try to look at your objective. The point of putting all the fighters on your carriers was to provoke an allied carrier raid that walked them in to a buzzsaw, raised his level of losses to a point that his industry couldn't handle such that he would not be able to replace losses. Your plan then was to load up the carriers and take the fight back to him with carriers loaded with attack aircraft.
 
From my perspective your plan has two holes:
 
1. Allied production of naval aircraft would be seriously hampered such that he couldn't replace the losses. Allied production of dauntlesses, avengers and hellcats is the highest of any of the allied production aircraft. From memory they get about 150-200 hellcats a month. I don't expect one battle will achieve what you're after here.
 
2. However, if we look at the second objective - smash his attack ability, and then quickly respond by loading the carriers with attack planes and attacking. I think this runs the danger of leakers from his initial strike still getting through - if they do you will likely have damaged carriers that can't be loaded up, hence lowering your ability to respond. You will also have not responded in kind to him, so his decks will all be available, even if they are denuded of attack aircraft. At this point you are also relying on Andy to stay in the combat zone. From his perspective he's just had a carrier duel that was strange - no return strike from your carriers, and his response may be to retire, which of course scuppers your plan.
 
Extrapolating this: you need to choose a location where he can't retire (for fear of leaving an invasion uncovered or some such). This still does not necessarily get you what you're after. If Andy has placed his replenishment CVEs close, he can have his decks loaded again very quickly.
 
In conclusion I think you are angling for a lot of things to go your way with this response. The greatest being that your huge CAP can keep all his carrier attack planes away from your carriers. In Vanilla WITP a viable tactic, in AE, with leaky CAP, quite a gamble.
Image

Image courtesy of Divepac
User avatar
PzB74
Posts: 5069
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2000 8:00 am
Location: No(r)way

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured!

Post by PzB74 »

Good points; the game engine itself is hard to appease and certain ac types do perform better than they should have even under ideal conditions.
The limitation of ship ammo is one approach by the programmers to try to make sea combat more historical and less deadly. The AE air engine has made A2A less deadly as well.
I concur that ac sea and land accuracy would benefit from a similar tweak.

I would also like to give merchant raiders and subs a x4 or x6 ammo loadout. As it is today they can hardly sink a single ship before returning to port.

If we conclude that it's not gamey to equip the carriers with any given ac loadout we should indeed consider whether such an approach is practical.
Obviously the Allies will receive enough replacement ac to sustain heavy losses, this may not be the case in early 44 and after sustaining heavy operational losses.
Another point is trained pilots; if we can shoot down enough Allied carrier planes pilot quality will suffer and pools will drain maybe even faster than ac pools, no?

Agree; the use of such a strategy is highly risky and should only be considered under favorable circumstances; like e.g. an all out enemy amph assault on the Line Islands or Marianas.
I'm not so worried about some ac getting past the Uber CAP; by fielding 16 Jap carriers and 100 support ships we will at most risk loosing a few ships and damage to another few.
We would then be able to withdraw to try again another day - enemy strike losses would have to be heavy no matter which kind of results they can achive.

If you consider an Allied carrier fleet with 1000 ac there would be ca 350 fighters and 650 bombers.
I doubt if any sane commander would leave less than 3-40% of his fighers on CAP during an amph operation. Some bombers would also be on search duties.
This would leave a force of ca 200+ fighters and 400 bombers. This force would have to attack in a single coordinated attack to stand a chance against a Jap force of 1000 fighters were 70% were set to CAP.
With radar working the attacking force would have to get past a lot of defending fighters and as you know very well Al, attacking units not sweeping suffer against CAP.

If weather was poor enemy bomber accuracy would be reduced and disrupted by heavy flak and numerous Jap surface targets.
I think it should be possible to claim 2-300 enemy carrier aircraft shot down with the loss of ca 100 CAP fighters. In addition to this another 100-150 enemy ac would be damaged and unavailable for a follow up strike. This would effectively turn the tables and force the enemy to conisder to flee and abandon his invasion force.

Why on earth am I discussing this with you Al! [:D]


..The Saratoga was reported not sunk the other day, much as I feared [:(]

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Jul 05, 43

Sub Attacks

A couple of sub sinkings today; a tiny sloop and a freighter travelling alone.

Sub attack near San Francisco at 213,74

Japanese Ships
SS I-26

Allied Ships
YMS-114, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage
YMS-115

SS I-26 launches 6 torpedoes at YMS-114
I-26 diving deep ....
YMS-115 fails to find sub, continues to search...
YMS-115 attacking submerged sub ....
YMS-115 is out of ASW ammo
YMS-115 is out of ASW ammo
YMS-115 is out of ASW ammo
YMS-115 is out of ASW ammo
YMS-115 fails to find sub, continues to search...
YMS-115 fails to find sub, continues to search...
YMS-115 fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine attack near Colombo at 27,49

Japanese Ships
SS I-30

Allied Ships
xAK Empire Raja, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage

xAK Empire Raja is sighted by SS I-30
SS I-30 launches 6 torpedoes at xAK Empire Raja

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

Very messy in the air today.

First 36 escort Zero's loose our Horn Island raid and turn home; then 36 Nicks sweep the island meeting ca 20 enemy fighters.
The battle is even sided with 6-7 ac lost on both sides. 27 unescorted Helens then go in and we loose some ac to the remaining CAP.
Then 2 A6M5 sweepers arrive to shoot down the last enemy CAP figher before the last 36 Oscars and Helens arrive to pound the place.
When all fighting is over the main A6M5 sweep of 16 ac arrive.

Weather forecast promised clear weather over Horn Island today but it was completely wrong.
Also a bit frustrating with the sweeps and uncoordinated bomber attacks from a base with adequare air support and 2!! Air HQs.

A dozen enemy heavy bomber raids against Daly Waters; they all come in at 10k feet, guess they came in one by one just
to give me more annoyance in clicking past them and prepping the AAR.. [8|]

So Carnarvon and Daly Waters are under attack but we won't put up a fight here right now; not tactically sound.

Morning Air attack on Carnarvon , at 49,133

Morning Air attack on Horn Island , at 91,128
Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 39 NM, estimated altitude 33,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 32

Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 4
P-39D Airacobra x 2
P-40K Warhawk x 12
P-47D2 Thunderbolt x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-45 KAIa Nick: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra: 1 destroyed
P-40K Warhawk: 3 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x Ki-45 KAIa Nick sweeping at 30000 feet *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Horn Island , at 91,128
Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 48 NM, estimated altitude 35,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 14 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 2

Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 2
P-40K Warhawk x 2
P-47D2 Thunderbolt x 2

No Japanese losses
No Allied losses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Horn Island , at 91,128
Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 32 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-49-IIa Helen x 27

Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 2
P-40K Warhawk x 2

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49-IIa Helen: 2 destroyed, 9 damaged

Allied aircraft losses

Allied ground losses:
12 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Airbase hits 3
Runway hits 11

Aircraft Attacking:
25 x Ki-49-IIa Helen bombing from 4000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Carnarvon , at 49,133
Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 15 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Allied aircraft
Beaufort VIII x 15
B-17E Fortress x 3
B-17F Fortress x 11
B-24D Liberator x 5

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 5
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 64
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Carnarvon , at 49,133
Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 48 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 16 minutes

Allied aircraft
Beaufort VIII x 9

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Daly Waters , at 76,131
Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 44 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17F Fortress x 3
B-24D Liberator x 20
B-24D1 Liberator x 24

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
11 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Airbase hits 20
Airbase supply hits 5
Runway hits 62
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Daly Waters , at 76,131
Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 16 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-24D Liberator x 6

No Allied losses

Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Carnarvon , at 49,133
Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 40 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 9

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Daly Waters , at 76,131
Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 20 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-24D Liberator x 12

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 3
Runway hits 15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Daly Waters , at 76,131
Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 18 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-24D1 Liberator x 7

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 2
Runway hits 12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Daly Waters , at 76,131
Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 40 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17F Fortress x 12

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Daly Waters , at 76,131
Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 38 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-24D1 Liberator x 9

No Allied losses

Runway hits 22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Daly Waters , at 76,131
Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 44 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-24D1 Liberator x 12

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 3
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Daly Waters , at 76,131
Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 24 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-24D Liberator x 12

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
5 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Runway hits 18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Horn Island , at 91,128
Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 44 NM, estimated altitude 33,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 3

Allied aircraft
P-40K Warhawk x 1

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
P-40K Warhawk: 1 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x Ki-45 KAIa Nick sweeping at 30000 feet *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Horn Island , at 91,128
Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 14 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IIb Oscar x 36
Ki-49-IIa Helen x 36

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49-IIa Helen: 1 destroyed, 6 damaged

Allied aircraft losses

Allied ground losses:
5 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Airbase hits 5
Airbase supply hits 5
Runway hits 19

Aircraft Attacking:
35 x Ki-49-IIa Helen bombing from 4000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Horn Island , at 91,128
Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 24 NM, estimated altitude 30,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 16

No Japanese losses

Aircraft Attacking:
16 x A6M5 Zero sweeping at 30000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Daly Waters , at 76,13
Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 43 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Allied aircraft
P-47D2 Thunderbolt x 20

No Allied losses

Aircraft Attacking:
20 x P-47D2 Thunderbolt sweeping at 14000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground Combat

Andy is securing the dot islands in Gulf of Carpentaria. Since these bases are well within the large Allied base complexes near Cairns
there is no use fighting for them. A company of our paratroopers could not defend against a 5 times stronger assault.

Ground combat at Groote Eylandt (82,130)
Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 252 troops, 6 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 19
Defending force 50 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 3

Allied adjusted assault: 15
Japanese adjusted defense: 3

Allied assault odds: 5 to 1 (fort level 0)
Allied forces CAPTURE Groote Eylandt !!!

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(+), preparation(-)
Attacker: shock(+), leaders(+), leaders(-)

Japanese ground losses:
33 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Assaulting units:
1st Australian Para Bn /1

Defending units:
Yokosuka Assault SNLF /3

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

Image
Attachments
SNAG0064.jpg
SNAG0064.jpg (572.84 KiB) Viewed 246 times
Image

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
User avatar
PzB74
Posts: 5069
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2000 8:00 am
Location: No(r)way

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured!

Post by PzB74 »

Not a lot to report;

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Jul 07, 43

Sub Action

What do you give me, another sub hits a mine of Singers..!

TF 213 encounters mine field at Singapore (50,84)

Allied Ships
SS Cuttlefish, Mine hits 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

Enemy night bombers continue to hit Magwe and the oil fields there.
Andy never bombed them before, guess he planned on recapturing the place [;)]
- 3 Wellingtons were lost today, the first night fighter kill was claimed here by a crack Irving pilot.

Night Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Japanese aircraft
J1N1-S Irving x 2

Allied aircraft
Wellington Ic x 12
Wellington B.X x 8

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Wellington Ic: 2 damaged
Wellington B.X: 2 damaged

Oil hits 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47
Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Allied aircraft
Wellington GR.VIII x 9

Allied aircraft losses
Wellington GR.VIII: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Oil hits 7

Aircraft Attacking:
8 x Wellington GR.VIII bombing from 7000 feet
City Attack: 6 x 250 lb GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 15th Garrison Unit , at 49,133 (Carnarvon)
Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid spotted at 12 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Allied aircraft
Beaufort VIII x 24
B-25C Mitchell x 25

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
71 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 3 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 4 (2 destroyed, 2 disabled)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Image

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
User avatar
CapAndGown
Posts: 3078
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Virginia, USA

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured!

Post by CapAndGown »

I am late to this discussion, but I thought I would chime in.

I don't like this plan for all-fighter CVs.

You are thinking that the US will have a very hard time fighting its way through the CAP. But AE is not like WitP at all. From my experience, and my experience includes some of the largest CV actions we have seen, getting though the CAP can be quite easy in some cases. If you look at the "Battle of Ponape" in my AAR, you will see that on the first day of the battle my first strike in the morning, and my first strike in the afternoon, seemed to fly right past the CAP. Very few of my escorts were engaged, and very few of my bombers were shot at. On the second day, the same thing happened with the allied strike: a large portion of my CAP did not even engage the escorts or fighters.

Rather than being defensive, I think in AE you want to offensive with your fighters. Because the CAP is much more porous than in WitP, I want to make sure my own strike goes through. If you goal is to send the enemy carriers home there is not better way to do that than putting some bombs through their flight decks. I think a CAP/escort ratio of 30/70 or 40/60 would enable you to get your strikes through the enemy CAP while giving you as much protection as you can hope for.

Also, I would aim to take advantage of LBA. Since the allies are coming at your bases, I would use LBA to attrition the enemy CV ac as much as possible before committing your own CVs. Since you can't do that with escorted raids, and sweeping enemy CVs is not possible, what you want to do is attract enemy strikes on targets over which you have a CAP, like a TF based at an island with a large airbase with plenty of fighters. Since your goal is to wear down the enemy CV ac contingent, and since they will be attacking your bases when this happens, why not try to accomplish your goal with LBA while preserving your own CV ac for offensive strikes?
User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured!

Post by castor troy »

but if you get a die roll that your strike more or less just flies through enemy Cap, wouldn´t it then be better anyway to have your fighters over your own carriers because if your strike wouldn´t be attacked you also wouldn´t need all these escorts. [:D] The Cap thing is one of the steps forward, you can still take down a hell a lot aircraft if you get the right die rolls, my last carrier engagement tallied some 300 enemy aircraft shot down for two BB damaged. IIRC there were some 350 Hellcats on Cap. If the enemy strike would have flown through my Cap, it of course would have whiped out my fleet though.
User avatar
PzB74
Posts: 5069
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2000 8:00 am
Location: No(r)way

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured!

Post by PzB74 »

That's also my experience Castor; A2A is still very bloody, especially over carriers with radar.
Every freaking fighter takes to the air when the fleet comes under attack.
- But yes indeed there's risk involved.

Another possibility is to have KB with 70% fighters and 30% bombers and hold the reserve strike groups ready in land bases.
The KB can thus be used for offensive sweeps and missions that require more protection.

Looks like Andy is moving his AF forward in Burma; Akyab is now a size 9 AF.
Not certain we can or should fight a battle of attrition in this region now; I'm holding 450 fighters over Rangoon - enemy long range sweeps will suffer
if they try to suppress the place. I can easily afford to loose airframes and pilot losses is relatively low over friendly turf.
- Sending 40 Tojo's to sweep an enemy Burma base tomorrow.

Last turn we bombarded Horn Island and hit Kweilin in China. Noticed an enemy fighter presence in the latter; correctly enough - 4 P38Hs were destroyed.
I've considered an offensive to capture Kweilin for some time, it's to close to out supply lines and air groups here can threaten shipping.


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Jul 08, 43

Bombardment

Night Naval bombardment of Horn Island at 91,128

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
CA Chokai
CA Atago
CL Natori
DD Nagatsuki
DD Oboro
DD Amagiri
DD Shirakumo

Allied ground losses:
72 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled

Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 8
Port hits 3
Port supply hits 1

E8N2 Dave acting as spotter for CA Chokai
CA Chokai firing at Horn Island
F1M2 Pete acting as spotter for CA Atago
CA Atago firing at 53rd (Sep) Infantry Regiment
CL Natori firing at Horn Island
DD Nagatsuki firing at 53rd (Sep) Infantry Regiment
DD Oboro firing at 53rd (Sep) Infantry Regiment
DD Amagiri firing at 53rd (Sep) Infantry Regiment
DD Shirakumo firing at 53rd (Sep) Infantry Regiment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

Morning Air attack on Kweilin , at 76,54
Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-Ic Sally x 5
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 25
Ki-21-IIb Sally x 3
Ki-43-Ia Oscar x 12
Ki-45 KAIc Nick x 17

Allied aircraft
no flights

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
P-38H Lightning: 1 destroyed on ground

Airbase hits 5
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kweilin , at 76,54
Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-Ic Sally x 20
Ki-21-IIb Sally x 9
Ki-43-IIb Oscar x 12
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 23
Ki-49-IIa Helen x 21

Allied aircraft
no flights

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
P-38H Lightning: 2 destroyed on ground

Airbase hits 4
Airbase supply hits 5
Runway hits 53

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Burma-China

We have many good divisions in Burma; holding most of the reserves in Rangoon.
Combined the 5th Guards Division today, a very potent unit.


Image
Attachments
SNAG0071.jpg
SNAG0071.jpg (546.03 KiB) Viewed 246 times
Image

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
User avatar
ny59giants
Posts: 9902
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm

RE: NEWSFLASH; Efate captured!

Post by ny59giants »

In Burma there looks to be a steady push to reopen the Burma Road to China.

I would say that a second pincher is going to come as Andy pushes to retake all of Australia. He made build up Normanton to use barges, small xAKs, or xAKLs to keep those small bases supplied as he builds up for a push for Darwin. Increasing your subs presence between Perth and Cape Town would seem to be in order.
[center]Image[/center]
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”