Think they did well, and they are a better choice for low CAP than the F4F...course we get the Hellcat in a few weeks and they are a substantial upgrade. In the last fight some Judy's sped away from the intercepting Wildcats.
Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Not sure if this is cheesy or not....but I put the squadron of Canadian pilots flying British Sea Hurricanes on one of the fleet carriers for low CAP....I got to really like low CAP for CV fleets using the Rufe in that role as Japan.
Think they did well, and they are a better choice for low CAP than the F4F...course we get the Hellcat in a few weeks and they are a substantial upgrade. In the last fight some Judy's sped away from the intercepting Wildcats.
Think they did well, and they are a better choice for low CAP than the F4F...course we get the Hellcat in a few weeks and they are a substantial upgrade. In the last fight some Judy's sped away from the intercepting Wildcats.
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Early in the game as a Japanese player, I will put Claudes on low CAP at 6k to deal with torpedo bombers, especially the British/Commonwealth biplanes.
I don't think that it is cheesy, but the Canadians would be complaining of a dry ship. The USS Robin did cross deck with the USS Saratoga, sending the TBMs to the Saratoga while VF-5 flew from the USS Robin.
https://militaryhistorynow.com/2021/05/ ... -u-s-navy/
I don't think that it is cheesy, but the Canadians would be complaining of a dry ship. The USS Robin did cross deck with the USS Saratoga, sending the TBMs to the Saratoga while VF-5 flew from the USS Robin.
https://militaryhistorynow.com/2021/05/ ... -u-s-navy/
- Attachments
-
- friends with benefits.jpg (79.15 KiB) Viewed 1163 times
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!
“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
; Julia Child

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!
“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
How do you interpret these reports where an aircraft is attacking one type of sub but reporting a hit on another type?Lowpe:
TBF-1 Avenger from VT-8 attacking a Type J2 class SS at 101,126
a Type KD4 class SS is reported HIT
My guess would be that neither sub type ID is reliable and the hit is very unlikely to have happened. If sub type reported and sub type hit were the same I would guess the hit was likely bona fide.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Notoriously bad reporting for sure....but it is always worthwhile to send a ship ASW to within 2 hexes to catch a potential cripple and to increase patrols in that vector....if you have the clicks in you.BBfanboy wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 3:49 pmHow do you interpret these reports where an aircraft is attacking one type of sub but reporting a hit on another type?Lowpe:
TBF-1 Avenger from VT-8 attacking a Type J2 class SS at 101,126
a Type KD4 class SS is reported HIT
My guess would be that neither sub type ID is reliable and the hit is very unlikely to have happened. If sub type reported and sub type hit were the same I would guess the hit was likely bona fide.
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Claudes are surprisingly effective very low.RangerJoe wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 1:48 pm Early in the game as a Japanese player, I will put Claudes on low CAP at 6k to deal with torpedo bombers, especially the British/Commonwealth biplanes.
I don't think that it is cheesy, but the Canadians would be complaining of a dry ship. The USS Robin did cross deck with the USS Saratoga, sending the TBMs to the Saratoga while VF-5 flew from the USS Robin.
https://militaryhistorynow.com/2021/05/ ... -u-s-navy/
Thanks for the link!
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
You are most welcome!Lowpe wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 11:04 pmClaudes are surprisingly effective very low.RangerJoe wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 1:48 pm Early in the game as a Japanese player, I will put Claudes on low CAP at 6k to deal with torpedo bombers, especially the British/Commonwealth biplanes.
I don't think that it is cheesy, but the Canadians would be complaining of a dry ship. The USS Robin did cross deck with the USS Saratoga, sending the TBMs to the Saratoga while VF-5 flew from the USS Robin.
https://militaryhistorynow.com/2021/05/ ... -u-s-navy/
Thanks for the link!![]()
- Attachments
-
- Rufous Fantail.jpg (38.47 KiB) Viewed 1108 times
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!
“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
; Julia Child

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!
“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Just waiting on the turn....
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Rufous Fantail. Cool picture!
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Thank you.
I decided to liven up my posts with pictures that may but usually don't have anything to do with what I write. Some people may like the pictures. Who knows, maybe it will start 6 pages of discussion between turns that will drive someone's opponents nuts thinking that a major operation is in the works and people are discussing it. That really did happen in an AAR when a player posted a picture of a tree . . .
- Attachments
-
- Australian Rainbow Lorikeets.jpg (111.84 KiB) Viewed 1022 times
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!
“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
; Julia Child

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!
“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Interesting developments...here. I need to better organize my Navy to have multiple amphibious invasion taskforces across Japan's perimeter to take advantage of KB sightings.
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
That bird looks pretty intense...but probably just pretty horny.
- CaptBeefheart
- Posts: 2619
- Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2003 2:42 am
- Location: Seoul, Korea
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
I always thought that even if you get a sync bug, you could rely on the combat report to be fairly accurate. Maybe not.
Not cheesy at all to use carrier assets in the best way possible. I always like putting something at 3,000 to 5,000 for carrier CAP. In the kamikaze era, that's even more important. I learned the hard way that if you put everything at 10-15K a squadron of Betty kamis could sneak under and ruin your day.
Cheers,
CB
Not cheesy at all to use carrier assets in the best way possible. I always like putting something at 3,000 to 5,000 for carrier CAP. In the kamikaze era, that's even more important. I learned the hard way that if you put everything at 10-15K a squadron of Betty kamis could sneak under and ruin your day.
Cheers,
CB
Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
March 14, 1943
The first real test of the Spitfire...piloted by Aussies.
The first real test of the Spitfire...piloted by Aussies.
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Attack against dug in LRPs...
Ground combat at 73,49 (near Kweiyang)
Japanese Deliberate attack
Attacking force 32316 troops, 328 guns, 738 vehicles, Assault Value = 1117
Defending force 37484 troops, 102 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 915
Japanese adjusted assault: 685
Allied adjusted defense: 1643
Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2
Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+)
Attacker:
Japanese ground losses:
2854 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 307 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 42 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 11 disabled
Guns lost 9 (2 destroyed, 7 disabled)
Vehicles lost 63 (8 destroyed, 55 disabled)
Allied ground losses:
1357 casualties reported
Squads: 13 destroyed, 168 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 21 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Ground combat at 73,49 (near Kweiyang)
Japanese Deliberate attack
Attacking force 32316 troops, 328 guns, 738 vehicles, Assault Value = 1117
Defending force 37484 troops, 102 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 915
Japanese adjusted assault: 685
Allied adjusted defense: 1643
Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2
Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+)
Attacker:
Japanese ground losses:
2854 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 307 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 42 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 11 disabled
Guns lost 9 (2 destroyed, 7 disabled)
Vehicles lost 63 (8 destroyed, 55 disabled)
Allied ground losses:
1357 casualties reported
Squads: 13 destroyed, 168 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 21 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
We held! Even eliminated a fragment...
Ground combat at Wewak (96,119)
Japanese Shock attack
Attacking force 1005 troops, 7 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 42
Defending force 652 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 21
Japanese adjusted assault: 18
Allied adjusted defense: 19
Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 0)
Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), preparation(-), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+)
Japanese ground losses:
154 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 17 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Allied ground losses:
29 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Assaulting units:
I/124th Infantry Battalion
43rd Nav Gd /4
Defending units:
2/8th Ind Coy /1
14th US Naval Construction Battalion
45th US Naval Const Bn /1
Ground combat at Wewak (96,119)
Japanese Shock attack
Attacking force 1005 troops, 7 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 42
Defending force 652 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 21
Japanese adjusted assault: 18
Allied adjusted defense: 19
Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 0)
Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), preparation(-), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+)
Japanese ground losses:
154 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 17 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Allied ground losses:
29 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Assaulting units:
I/124th Infantry Battalion
43rd Nav Gd /4
Defending units:
2/8th Ind Coy /1
14th US Naval Construction Battalion
45th US Naval Const Bn /1
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Victory...IJA troopers moved to the south...no supply for them.
They will be bomber practice.
Ground combat at Exmouth (50,129)
Allied Shock attack
Attacking force 894 troops, 3 guns, 127 vehicles, Assault Value = 80
Defending force 2015 troops, 17 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 15
Allied adjusted assault: 63
Japanese adjusted defense: 7
Allied assault odds: 9 to 1 (fort level 1)
Allied forces CAPTURE Exmouth !!!
Combat modifiers
Defender: disruption(-), preparation(-), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+)
Japanese ground losses:
836 casualties reported
Squads: 28 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 27 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 9 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 4 (3 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Units retreated 3
Ground combat at Exmouth (50,129)
Allied Shock attack
Attacking force 894 troops, 3 guns, 127 vehicles, Assault Value = 80
Defending force 2015 troops, 17 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 15
Allied adjusted assault: 63
Japanese adjusted defense: 7
Allied assault odds: 9 to 1 (fort level 1)
Allied forces CAPTURE Exmouth !!!
Combat modifiers
Defender: disruption(-), preparation(-), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+)
Japanese ground losses:
836 casualties reported
Squads: 28 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 27 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 9 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 4 (3 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Units retreated 3
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
More good fighter trades. Need to discover why I lost so many transports...some are carrying troops today and that might be it. Flying in the Punjabs to Kunming!
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
I can get an AR here to further improve pumping out the counter flooding...and that will get her able to conduct flight operations....but still iffy for service.
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
As long as she can do flight operations, she can perform CAP and ASW missions to protect herself on the way to a shipyard.Lowpe wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:36 pm I can get an AR here to further improve pumping out the counter flooding...and that will get her able to conduct flight operations....but still iffy for service.
b3.jpg
- Attachments
-
- coming home to find a little soul waiting for you priceless.jpg (19.63 KiB) Viewed 894 times
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!
“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
; Julia Child

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!
“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Something to think about...force composition and devices & how they interact.



