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 »

May 13, 1942

Miss a large oiler near Horn Island...

6-1, finally take Bundaberg. [:)]

Ground combat at Bundaberg (96,155)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 33838 troops, 474 guns, 545 vehicles, Assault Value = 935

Defending force 13958 troops, 153 guns, 33 vehicles, Assault Value = 239

Allied adjusted assault: 614

Japanese adjusted defense: 95

Allied assault odds: 6 to 1 (fort level 0)

Allied forces CAPTURE Bundaberg !!!

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-57-I Topsy: 3 destroyed
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed

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

Japanese ground losses:
1044 casualties reported
Squads: 12 destroyed, 43 disabled
Non Combat: 24 destroyed, 58 disabled
Engineers: 35 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 76 (74 destroyed, 2 disabled)
Vehicles lost 27 (27 destroyed, 0 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
235 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 34 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 3 (1 destroyed, 2 disabled)

Assaulting units:
7th RAA Coastal Artillery Regiment
3rd Australian Division
2/4th Armoured Regiment
6th RAA Coastal Artillery Regiment
2/5th Armoured Regiment
5th Australian Division
2/8th Armoured Regiment
5th RAA Coastal Artillery Regiment
46th Indian Brigade
2nd Aus Cav Brigade
4th Australian/B Division
147th Field Artillery Battalion
2nd Marine Defense Battalion
223rd Field Artillery Battalion
2nd RAA Coastal Artillery Regiment
98th Coast AA Regiment
198th Field Artillery Battalion
148th Field Artillery Battalion
II Australian
4th RAAF Base Force
131st Field Artillery Battalion
260th Field Artillery Battalion
A/B Battery Heavy Coastal Artillery Regiment

Defending units:
Sasebo 8th SNLF
33rd Division
Yokosuka 4th SNLF
1st Raiding Rgt /2
1st Medium Field Artillery Regiment
5th Naval Construction Battalion
4th JAAF AF Bn
21st Infantry Rgt /7

Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (183.05 KiB) Viewed 385 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Having fleet carriers off Australia, pretty much for a month, with less than 100 fighters is just asking to be destroyed.[&:]

Anyway, I am not reacting to him...rather I have my own plans and they can burn fuel till the cows come home there. Suits me fine.[:)]

Only 60 fighters over Rockhampton...down to 20k troops and 12 units 133 guns and 20 AFVs.





Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (421.95 KiB) Viewed 385 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Why would you base your transports at Bundaberg? Just doesn't make sense.[&:]

Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (102.07 KiB) Viewed 385 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

An Iboat and a tanker in port at Colombo...bombers and aux way down, fighters up.



Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (275.91 KiB) Viewed 385 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Luzon

Ground combat at Clark Field (79,76)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 34498 troops, 507 guns, 636 vehicles, Assault Value = 1026

Defending force 35939 troops, 339 guns, 217 vehicles, Assault Value = 1193

Japanese adjusted assault: 753

Allied adjusted defense: 1195

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 1)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
4507 casualties reported
Squads: 22 destroyed, 332 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 51 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 21 disabled
Vehicles lost 17 (1 destroyed, 16 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
165 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 7 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 23 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 4 (2 destroyed, 2 disabled)
Vehicles lost 31 (12 destroyed, 19 disabled)


Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (126.61 KiB) Viewed 385 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Really using the Allied fighters in a ground attack role....they do very well.

Morning Air attack on 21st Infantry Regiment, at 96,155 (Bundaberg)

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid spotted at 19 NM, estimated altitude 6,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Allied aircraft
Beaufighter Ic x 2
P-39D Airacobra x 20

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra: 3 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
18 x P-39D Airacobra bombing from 100 feet
2 x P-39D Airacobra bombing from 100 feet
Ground Attack: 1 x 500 lb GP Bomb
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20416
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

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

Post by BBfanboy »

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Just had my California brother out visiting for the last 10 days....doing super well after heart surgery. He walked 5 miles at an Arboretum for example!

Thanks for everyones' wellwishes.[:)]

Took him back to the airport this am.
Great to hear some good news! Thanks for sharing. [:)]
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
BBfanboy
Posts: 20416
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

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

Post by BBfanboy »

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Why would you base your transports at Bundaberg? Just doesn't make sense.[&:]

Image
Could they have been put there to fly out troops and got stranded by airfield damage or aircraft damage? Obviously it is safer to base them at another airfield and use the "Pick Up Troops" mission to get the troops out, but most of us do that so rarely that it might not have occurred to him.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
DesertWolf101
Posts: 1719
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 1:06 pm

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

Post by DesertWolf101 »

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Luzon

Ground combat at Clark Field (79,76)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 34498 troops, 507 guns, 636 vehicles, Assault Value = 1026

Defending force 35939 troops, 339 guns, 217 vehicles, Assault Value = 1193

Japanese adjusted assault: 753

Allied adjusted defense: 1195

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 1)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
4507 casualties reported
Squads: 22 destroyed, 332 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 51 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 21 disabled
Vehicles lost 17 (1 destroyed, 16 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
165 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 7 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 23 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 4 (2 destroyed, 2 disabled)
Vehicles lost 31 (12 destroyed, 19 disabled)


Image

How is your overall supply in Luzon? Looks like you still have enough even though it's May. I'm curious, was there much effort by NJP72 to bomb your supply and did you send any additional shipments to Luzon by submarine or transport?
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Could they have been put there to fly out troops and got stranded by airfield damage or aircraft damage? Obviously it is safer to base them at another airfield and use the "Pick Up Troops" mission to get the troops out, but most of us do that so rarely that it might not have occurred to him.

As Japan you fly troops so much there really is no excuse, or perhaps they were simply damaged very early by a surprise bombardment and never got fixed, but their sr isn't that high and there was aviation support unit there now...so don't know.
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101



How is your overall supply in Luzon? Looks like you still have enough even though it's May. I'm curious, was there much effort by NJP72 to bomb your supply and did you send any additional shipments to Luzon by submarine or transport?

I got one xak in from Pearl, out of three sent, one sunk by iboat, one chickened out, the other made it.

I have had a few sub loads sent there.

Balikpapen and Miri were late conquers and I got about six xakl loads of supply out of there for Luzon.

Got about 4-5k supply left. Japan is bombing everyday by air now.

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

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

Post by Lowpe »

First CD gun unit arrives at Rockhampton today...starting a general bombardment there as Japan withdraws from the base. I suspect he might bombard me.

Dispatched mines for Bundaberg, HQa, and some Aviation support. Sent more CD guns from Bundaberg to Rockhampton.

PT boats to rebase to Bundaberg.

Will set up another cap trap over the armored cars tomorrow...they will move by rail this day, and the bombers should follow to the new base. Tricksy.

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 »

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Just had my California brother out visiting for the last 10 days....doing super well after heart surgery. He walked 5 miles at an Arboretum for example!

Thanks for everyones' wellwishes.[:)]

Took him back to the airport this am.
Great to hear some good news! Thanks for sharing. [:)]

Yes, that is good news!
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 »

May 14th, 1942

Not good...China looking very perilous now. One of our smaller corps was in reserve no pursuit and stayed there, but the AT guns were all wiped out. I was counting on a better performance from them.

Air lifting all Indian Jungle Guns now to Ankang to face this new Armored thrust.

Will probably have to move all C47s to provide supply along the Ankang road.


Ground combat at 83,45 (near Nanyang)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 28840 troops, 270 guns, 557 vehicles, Assault Value = 1003

Defending force 30632 troops, 187 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 694

Japanese adjusted assault: 813

Allied adjusted defense: 1231

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2

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

Japanese ground losses:
255 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 33 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 7 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Guns lost 37 (34 destroyed, 3 disabled)
Vehicles lost 43 (1 destroyed, 42 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
1228 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 155 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 18 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 10 disabled
Units destroyed 1

Assaulting units:
12th Tank Regiment
5th Tank Regiment
9th Tank Regiment
23rd Tank Regiment
10th Tank Regiment
13th Tank Regiment
15th Tank Regiment
40th Division
3rd Tank Regiment
116th Division
11th Tank Regiment
13th Army
52nd Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion
51st Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion
11th Field Artillery Regiment

Defending units:
41st Chinese Corps
30th Chinese Corps
77th Chinese Corps
85th British AT Rgt /2

Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (410.96 KiB) Viewed 383 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Making progress...

Will have to sort thru my AA allocations as now they cannot reach some of the big resource bases in the south. Plus it will free up the Kittyhawk squadrons which have been protecting down south.



Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (312.75 KiB) Viewed 383 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

I don't think I have flown supplies with the transports yet, they are moving troops. Right now we have a pretty high percent rest...normally run around 30% depending upon range and other conditions.

Try to rest them a day after a move...would like to rest them the day prior too, but that hasn't always been the case.





Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (259.57 KiB) Viewed 383 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

May 15th, 1942


Our tricky CAP trap worked...the armored cars left by rail yesterday, I then put them into move mode so they are in the middle of nowhere, but close to Charleville, and LRCAP'd them with P40s and the IJ bombers followed, well some of them.



Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (315.67 KiB) Viewed 383 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 a grinding fight with here...building up our next strongpoint south of Ankang, mtn guns and Stuarts there.

We are being bombed daily by Japan...



Image
Attachments
animatedarmorimage.jpg
animatedarmorimage.jpg (239.04 KiB) Viewed 383 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Look at that coordination...we swept Trin today, but nobody there.



Image
Attachments
admiral.jpg
admiral.jpg (165.89 KiB) Viewed 383 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Rockhampton falls...going to have to do some serious clicks in Australia now, and reset our two command HQs prep.

The route to Darwin is getting built up too...Alice Springs is a 4 AF, Oodnadatta is 6. Time to get some recon on Tenant Creek.

Ground combat at Rockhampton (95,152)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 44828 troops, 745 guns, 541 vehicles, Assault Value = 1545

Defending force 8051 troops, 37 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 89

Allied adjusted assault: 1600

Japanese adjusted defense: 59

Allied assault odds: 27 to 1 (fort level 3)

Allied forces CAPTURE Rockhampton !!!

Combat modifiers
Defender: preparation(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
1842 casualties reported
Squads: 39 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 121 destroyed, 89 disabled
Engineers: 81 destroyed, 7 disabled
Guns lost 22 (17 destroyed, 5 disabled)
Units retreated 4

Allied ground losses:
620 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 69 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 7 disabled
Guns lost 19 (1 destroyed, 18 disabled)
Units pursuing 4

Attack at Bundaberg:

Ground combat at Bundaberg (96,155)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 30678 troops, 467 guns, 514 vehicles, Assault Value = 896

Defending force 11761 troops, 88 guns, 10 vehicles, Assault Value = 121

Allied adjusted assault: 99

Japanese adjusted defense: 123

Allied assault odds: 1 to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), disruption(-), preparation(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
766 casualties reported
Squads: 9 destroyed, 51 disabled
Non Combat: 16 destroyed, 20 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Guns lost 15 (7 destroyed, 8 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
131 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 21 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 6 (2 destroyed, 4 disabled)



Image
Attachments
b.jpg
b.jpg (359.02 KiB) Viewed 383 times
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”