Page 274 of 788
RE: Allied TF Behaviour
Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 8:50 pm
by Cap Mandrake
If we are lucky, we might have 2 carriers that can conduct flight ops. Formidable has got to be in bad shape as she already had 26% flood damage from the day before.
We need to beat feet and save what we can. All the troops are ashore and might even have enough to take PH but we will likely face 2 Jap carriers in decent shape.
Yorkotwn and Illustrious can make for Carnavon with it's 100 fighters.
RE: Allied TF Behaviour
Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 8:52 pm
by Cap Mandrake
Merely a flesh wound. [:)]
RE: Allied TF Behaviour
Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 10:58 pm
by Chickenboy
You'll call it a draw? [&:]
RE: Allied TF Behaviour
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:45 am
by CT Grognard
ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake
The "102nd Combat Engineer Regiment" is making a pest of itself at Port Headland.
In an effort to find some historical context, I did some research. I can't find such a unit. There was a "102nd Engineer Bn" which was attached to 27th ID and did serve in the PTO.
I think they are a little too big for their britches.
Some research indicates that the 102nd Engineer Battalion, (Combat), was a New York National Guard unit attached to, as you indicate, the 27th Infantry Division. The 27th Infantry Division was made up exclusively of New York National Guard units and found itself at the beginning of the war at Fort McClellen, Anniston, Alabama.
Does this qualify as an OOB query?
RE: Allied TF Behaviour
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 10:34 am
by CT Grognard
Tell me, what altitude are you setting your CAP at?
I'd have one squadron at 5,000', one at 10,000' and one at 15,000'.
Players tend to be lazy at times and place all their CAP at the same altitude (e.g. 15,000'). A clever Japanese player then sends in a low-level Betty/Kate strike and despite there being massive CAP, a lot get through to score hits.
With Vals at least you know they pretty much will come in at around 10,000' in order to dive bomb, so if up against Vals only, put all your CAP at that level.
What altitude did those Kate strikes come in at?
RE: Allied TF Behaviour
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 10:43 am
by Cap Mandrake
ORIGINAL: CT Grognard
ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake
The "102nd Combat Engineer Regiment" is making a pest of itself at Port Headland.
In an effort to find some historical context, I did some research. I can't find such a unit. There was a "102nd Engineer Bn" which was attached to 27th ID and did serve in the PTO.
I think they are a little too big for their britches.
Some research indicates that the 102nd Engineer Battalion, (Combat), was a New York National Guard unit attached to, as you indicate, the 27th Infantry Division. The 27th Infantry Division was made up exclusively of New York National Guard units and found itself at the beginning of the war at Fort McClellen, Anniston, Alabama.
Does this qualify as an OOB query?
I think it really should be 102nd Engineer Bn. As 27th ID comes in by regiment, I think it is reasonable to have 102nd Engineer as a separate unit, but you do wonder if it should be part fo the build for 27th ID.
One thing for sure. Somebody in the unit is a hoarder.

RE: Allied TF Behaviour
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 10:46 am
by Cap Mandrake
102nd will NOT be invited on any other attacks should they survive this. They have cost us at least 3 d of unloading, including at least 2 with all the combat troops ashore because they have taken all the field kitchens for the entire force.
102nd Engineer has over 10x the supply allocation of the entire 32nd ID.
In those two days, Formidable was damaged in a DD attack and then there was last turn. It is just maddening. We will now have to retreat and hope we can come back later and save 32nd ID and 2nd Div.
RE: Allied TF Behaviour
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 10:53 am
by CT Grognard
That is bizarre.
Do you think it might have anything to do with the HQ it's attached to?
RE: Allied TF Behaviour
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 10:56 am
by Cap Mandrake
Here is 102nd Engineer
1200 men, 7 bulldozers
sounds like a Bn to me.
CO is Lt. Col Nathaniel "Net" Wirth of the Hudson Valley....you know right near the Rossevelt's place.

RE: Allied TF Behaviour
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 11:02 am
by sprior
ORIGINAL: CT Grognard
That is bizarre.
Do you think it might have anything to do with the HQ it's attached to?
No, it's because they're gits.
RE: Allied TF Behaviour
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 11:04 am
by Cap Mandrake
ORIGINAL: CT Grognard
That is bizarre.
Do you think it might have anything to do with the HQ it's attached to?
That is possible but, East Africa Brigade is also attached to a high order HQ.
It also seems odd that an engineer bn has 1/6 the assault power of the entire 32nd ID.
I am thinking there is a bad number somewhere.
RE: Allied TF Behaviour
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 11:07 am
by Cap Mandrake
Here is another observation. Those annoying little yellow baaaaahsterds don't give up.
RE: Allied TF Behaviour
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 11:23 am
by CT Grognard
The 102nd Engineer Battalion (Combat) apparently had at the time the war started a Major Harold Finn Gormsen as its commander, who had seen service during World War I (being awarded the WWI British War Medal).
He ended the Second World War as a Lieutenant Colonel and was awarded the Bronze Star with Oak Leaf Cluster (his first Bronze Star was won at Saipan and his second at Peleliu).
The 102nd Combat Engineers was a very old New York National Guard unit that was formed before World War I.
They were very involved in the Central Pacific, being present at Saipan, Peleliu, and Okinawa.
RE: Allied TF Behaviour
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 11:25 am
by CT Grognard
Assault value looks right - each of those Combat Engineer Squads and MMG Sections are worth 1 AV each.
If the 32nd Infantry Division only has around 200 AV, it must be seriously understrength/undersupplied.
RE: Allied TF Behaviour
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 11:26 am
by Cap Mandrake
ORIGINAL: CT Grognard
Tell me, what altitude are you setting your CAP at?
I'd have one squadron at 5,000', one at 10,000' and one at 15,000'.
Players tend to be lazy at times and place all their CAP at the same altitude (e.g. 15,000'). A clever Japanese player then sends in a low-level Betty/Kate strike and despite there being massive CAP, a lot get through to score hits.
With Vals at least you know they pretty much will come in at around 10,000' in order to dive bomb, so if up against Vals only, put all your CAP at that level.
What altitude did those Kate strikes come in at?
Here is more detail on the morning strike.
39 Zero
27 Vals
25 Kate approach at 15000 ft
20 Kates and 14 Vals get through the CAP...so it looks like the F4F's downed 18 bombers and 3 Zeroes, not bad considering their raid had 39 Zeroes in escort.
There is this ray of hope.
The Vals are dropping 60kg bombs!!! Most of the Kates had 250kg bombs at 9000 ft. I thik I know why we had no fires reported after the first attack.
Morning Air attack on TF, near Port Hedland at 58,128
Weather in hex: Heavy rain
Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 51 minutes
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 39
B5N2 Kate x 37
D3A1 Val x 25
Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 61
Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 3 destroyed
B5N2 Kate: 13 destroyed, 4 damaged
D3A1 Val: 12 destroyed, 5 damaged
Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 3 destroyed
Allied Ships
CV Illustrious, Bomb hits 3
CV Formidable, Bomb hits 6, Torpedo hits 1
CA Pensacola
CV Yorktown
Aircraft Attacking:
12 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
4 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
4 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
6 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000' *
Naval Attack: 2 x 60 kg GP Bomb
8 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000' *
Naval Attack: 2 x 60 kg GP Bomb
RE: Allied TF Behaviour
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 11:31 am
by USSAmerica
ORIGINAL: sprior
ORIGINAL: CT Grognard
That is bizarre.
Do you think it might have anything to do with the HQ it's attached to?
No, it's because they're gits.
What version are you guys playing with? I'm pretty sure this is a bug that Michael M has fixed in one of the beta builds. One LCU would hoard all the unloaded supply during amphib landings.
RE: Allied TF Behaviour
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 11:32 am
by CT Grognard
They are striking you at extended distance then - probably 8 or 9 hexes away. The Zero escorts will be using drop tanks.
Aside from the 25 bombers you shot down, expect them to probably lose another 10-15 Kates and Vals on ops losses.
Your opponent must be running very low on experienced pilots.
RE: Allied TF Behaviour
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 11:35 am
by Erkki
ORIGINAL: CT Grognard
They are striking you at extended distance then - probably 8 or 9 hexes away. The Zero escorts will be using drop tanks.
Aside from the 25 bombers you shot down, expect them to probably lose another 10-15 Kates and Vals on ops losses.
Your opponent must be running very low on experienced pilots.
7 hex range. D3A1 wont fly further, also 7 is the only range it carries 60kg bombs, and Japanese CVs launch strikes only to 8(Allied to 7).
RE: Allied TF Behaviour
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 11:37 am
by CT Grognard
I stand corrected, and defer to your more accurate knowledge.
RE: Allied TF Behaviour
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 12:14 pm
by Cap Mandrake
Don't have the turn yet, but, yes, I think they tried to finesse us on the 8/7 range advantage based on our previous carrier postion, but <Chico voice> "we trick them...we no show up".
One of their carriers is burning. Most likely some of their planes had to ditch or divert to Broome or PH where they won't be of much use and they have suffered losses to the bomber groups. It is possible they will have to pull back their carriers for fine tuning. Also odd is the fact that so many of the Kates were using bombs. This may be a pilot skill issue or one or more carriers may be out of torps.
Of course, we can't stand at PH now either. We will need to get out what we can and repair Wasp and Yorktown. We can disembark Aus I Corps and rest them. They might even be needed for PH.