Page 247 of 324
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2023 12:49 pm
by jedwardpita
How do you keep track with so much action, spread over so much territory taking place at once?
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2023 11:12 am
by Lowpe
jedwardpita wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 12:49 pm
How do you keep track with so much action, spread over so much territory taking place at once?
Definitely a lot of moving parts...but really it is just the war...I suspect every AFB has to address it.
I do off map first, rotate thru my shipping hubs including West Coast, do Burma, and SRA next. Every two or three days I look at Australia and Marcus Island, and once a week glance at the Aleutians.
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2023 1:01 pm
by Lowpe
Still doing the turn....quite a lot of clicks, TFs to be protected, ships repaired, offensive actions planned, and troop convoys across the map....

- a.jpg (725.65 KiB) Viewed 893 times
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:53 am
by Lowpe
July 28, 1943
IJN keeps coming for the landings....but we continue to have very good weather for the fights...

- a.jpg (269.38 KiB) Viewed 787 times
Night Time Surface Combat, near Quinhon at 66,70, Range 7,000 Yards
Japanese Ships
DD Asagiri, Shell hits 1
DD Akebono, Shell hits 4, on fire
DD Yuzuki
Allied Ships
CA Salt Lake City
CA Quincy
CA Wichita, Shell hits 1
DD Buchanan
DD Barton
DD Meade, Shell hits 2
DD Ellet
DE Crane
DE Humphreys
DE King
DE Lawrence
Reduced sighting due to 21% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions and 21% moonlight: 8,000 yards
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:54 am
by Lowpe
A couple of heavy cruisers next...

- A20BismarckSea.jpg (304.66 KiB) Viewed 786 times
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:55 am
by Lowpe
Paratrooper attack!

- b.jpg (437.99 KiB) Viewed 785 times
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:58 am
by Lowpe
PT boats fearless! Good intel...
Night Time Surface Combat, near Quinhon at 66,70, Range 2,000 Yards
Japanese Ships
BB Mutsu
DD Suzukaze
DD Akatsuki
DD Inazuma
DD Fubuki
DD Shikinami
DD Hatakaze
Allied Ships
PT-123, Shell hits 1
PT-238, Shell hits 1
Reduced sighting due to 14% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions and 14% moonlight: 2,000 yards
Range closes to 10,000 yards...
Range closes to 8,000 yards...
Range closes to 6,000 yards...
Range closes to 4,000 yards...
Range closes to 2,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 2,000 yards
CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 2,000 yards
PT-123 engages DD Hatakaze at 2,000 yards
DD Hatakaze engages PT-238 at 2,000 yards
DD Shikinami engages PT-123 at 2,000 yards
DD Suzukaze engages PT-238 at 2,000 yards
Gordon, S.V. orders Allied TF to disengage
Range increases to 4,000 yards
Task forces break off...
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2023 12:00 pm
by Lowpe
Sadly Suwannee sinks...couldn't put out her small fires and the flooding got out of control....unfortunately took Admiral Norman with her!
CVE Suwannee sinks....
RADM Scott, Norman has been KILLED
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2023 12:02 pm
by Lowpe
Heavy CAP and bad weather over Cam Ranh Bay...where are the Franks?
Morning Air attack on Cam Ranh Bay , at 64,72
Weather in hex: Severe storms
Raid detected at 41 NM, estimated altitude 40,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 17 minutes
Japanese aircraft
A6M5b Zero x 15
A6M5c Zero x 27
N1K1-J George x 5
Ki-43-IIIa Oscar x 56
Ki-43-IV Oscar x 49
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 6
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 11
Ki-61-Ib Tony x 15
Allied aircraft
F6F-3 Hellcat x 13
Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5c Zero: 1 destroyed
Ki-43-IIIa Oscar: 1 destroyed
Ki-43-IV Oscar: 1 destroyed
Ki-61-Ib Tony: 2 destroyed
Allied aircraft losses
F6F-3 Hellcat: 2 destroyed
Morning Air attack on Cam Ranh Bay , at 64,72
Weather in hex: Severe storms
Raid detected at 41 NM, estimated altitude 40,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 17 minutes
Japanese aircraft
A6M5b Zero x 15
A6M5c Zero x 27
N1K1-J George x 5
Ki-43-IIIa Oscar x 56
Ki-43-IV Oscar x 49
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 6
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 11
Ki-61-Ib Tony x 15
Allied aircraft
F6F-3 Hellcat x 13
Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5c Zero: 1 destroyed
Ki-43-IIIa Oscar: 1 destroyed
Ki-43-IV Oscar: 1 destroyed
Ki-61-Ib Tony: 2 destroyed
Allied aircraft losses
F6F-3 Hellcat: 2 destroyed
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2023 12:05 pm
by Lowpe
Japan has very little naval search in the area around Quinhon...our subs strike again!

- admiral.jpg (367.57 KiB) Viewed 771 times
Another shot targets a destroyer:
ASW attack near Cam Ranh Bay at 65,72
Japanese Ships
DD Shirayuki
CA Takao
DD Kisaragi
DD Mochizuki
DD Mikazuki
Allied Ships
SS Ray
SS Ray launches 4 torpedoes at DD Shirayuki
DD Mochizuki fails to find sub and abandons search
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2023 12:06 pm
by Lowpe
Three penetrating hits....
ASW attack near Quinhon at 65,69
Japanese Ships
SS I-182, hits 15, heavy damage
Allied Ships
DE Whipple
DE John D. Edwards
DE Gilmer
DE Ward
SS I-182 is sighted by escort
I-182 bottoming out ....
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2023 12:08 pm
by Lowpe
Only 1 small air attack on our LOC...2 Jakes low over Jolo:
Morning Air attack on TF, near Jolo at 74,90
Weather in hex: Light rain
Raid detected at 39 NM, estimated altitude 6,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 19 minutes
Japanese aircraft
E13A1 Jake x 2
Allied aircraft
Martlet IV x 14
P-39D Airacobra x 9
F4F-4 Wildcat x 14
Japanese aircraft losses
E13A1 Jake: 1 destroyed
No Allied losses
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2023 12:10 pm
by Lowpe
Heavy Allied bombing runs and sweeps over Burma...Rangoon burning from refinery hits. A few Zeroes tried to protect IJA soldiers but they were swept aside by P40Ks...
All of our heavy ship convoys proceeded unmolested all across the map....
Should have flown in reinforcements to Vinh from Burma...12 hex range.
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2023 12:13 pm
by Lowpe
Tried a long range, from Burma, night attack on the Port at Saigon...bad weather foils the attack. No air warning.
Night Air attack on Saigon , at 60,71
Weather in hex: Severe storms
Raid spotted at 10 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes
Allied aircraft
Liberator GR.III x 4
No Allied losses
Aircraft Attacking:
4 x Liberator GR.III bombing from 8000 feet *
Port Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2023 12:14 pm
by Lowpe
Some decent flak at Rangoon...even the bad weather doens't stop us from reporting hits on the refineries...which were more than 50% damaged as of yesterday.
Morning Air attack on Rangoon , at 54,53
Weather in hex: Severe storms
Raid detected at 23 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes
Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIc Trop x 9
Liberator II x 4
B-24D1 Liberator x 11
Allied aircraft losses
Liberator II: 2 damaged
B-24D1 Liberator: 1 damaged
Refinery hits 3
Fires 19
Aircraft Attacking:
4 x Liberator II bombing from 6000 feet
City Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
5 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 6000 feet
City Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 6000 feet
City Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 6000 feet
City Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Rangoon , at 54,53
Weather in hex: Severe storms
Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes
Allied aircraft
B-25C Mitchell x 11
B-25D1 Mitchell x 14
Allied aircraft losses
B-25D1 Mitchell: 1 destroyed by flak
Refinery hits 4
Fires 15
Aircraft Attacking:
3 x B-25C Mitchell bombing from 8000 feet
City Attack: 6 x 500 lb GP Bomb
8 x B-25C Mitchell bombing from 8000 feet
City Attack: 6 x 500 lb GP Bomb
6 x B-25D1 Mitchell bombing from 8000 feet
City Attack: 6 x 500 lb GP Bomb
7 x B-25D1 Mitchell bombing from 8000 feet
City Attack: 6 x 500 lb GP Bomb
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2023 3:11 pm
by Lowpe
Sitrep:

- a.jpg (572.88 KiB) Viewed 723 times
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2023 3:36 pm
by jedwardpita
Lowpe wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 12:00 pm
Sadly Suwannee sinks...couldn't put out her small fires and the flooding got out of control....unfortunately took Admiral Norman with her!
CVE Suwannee sinks....
RADM Scott, Norman has been KILLED
Will there are a lot more CVEs on the way, so I wouldn't worry about CVE losses until they are in the double digits.
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2023 5:10 pm
by RangerJoe
I always considered Admiral Norman Scott to be a Surface Combat task force commander.
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2023 1:37 pm
by Lowpe
RangerJoe wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 5:10 pm
I always considered Admiral Norman Scott to be a Surface Combat task force commander.
He was there to try and save the CVE....high naval...high flooding meant no air ops anyhow.
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2023 1:39 pm
by Lowpe
jedwardpita wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 3:36 pm
Lowpe wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 12:00 pm
Sadly Suwannee sinks...couldn't put out her small fires and the flooding got out of control....unfortunately took Admiral Norman with her!
CVE Suwannee sinks....
RADM Scott, Norman has been KILLED
Will there are a lot more CVEs on the way, so I wouldn't worry about CVE losses until they are in the double digits.
I don't subscribe to the AFB theory that CVEs are expendable. It was my bad...if I would have had another 30 fighters in the task force instead of Avengers there would have been no hits.
If I would have been braver and left the CVE out at sea, then that first day after the attack the crew would most likely have put out the fires.
All water under the bridge, because I doubt I could have save her as she would have been tied to the port...and eventually vulnerable.