Matrix Games Forums

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 11/02/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Lunga, at 67,97


Allied aircraft
no flights


Allied aircraft losses
SBD Dauntless: 14 destroyed
B-24D Liberator: 5 destroyed

Japanese Ships
CA Mikuma
CA Mogami
CA Chikuma
CA Tone
BB Hyuga
BB Ise
BB Yamashiro
BB Fuso
BB Musashi
BB Yamato
BB Mutsu
BB Nagato


Allied ground losses:
4443 casualties reported
Guns lost 37
Vehicles lost 29

Airbase hits 9
Airbase supply hits 8
Runway hits 71
Port hits 1

Is it not nice that all the Marine stay outside sunbathing during a Naval Bombardment.

Yup.

ORIGINAL: madmickey

Is it not nice that all the Marine stay outside sunbathing during a Naval Bombardment.

That's what we did on the FO hill...catch rays and call a fire mission ever once in a while...[:D]

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

ORIGINAL: madmickey

Is it not nice that all the Marine stay outside sunbathing during a Naval Bombardment.

That's what we did on the FO hill...catch rays and call a fire mission ever once in a while...[:D]

"Catchin' some rays, drinking some wine, eating some cheese. Stop with the negative waves moriarity, stop with the negative waves."

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

ORIGINAL: madmickey

Is it not nice that all the Marine stay outside sunbathing during a Naval Bombardment.

That's what we did on the FO hill...catch rays and call a fire mission ever once in a while...[:D]

"Catchin' some rays, drinking some wine, eating some cheese. Stop with the negative waves moriarity, stop with the negative waves."

I don't think this bombardment would have been so bad if they had been using paint shells![;)]

I love that movie...my copy got screwed up...gonna have to replace it sometime.

"'Crapgame'?...'Kelly'?...'Big Joe'?...That's a hell of a code!"

"But it's a Mutha Luvin' beautiful bridge Moriarity...and is gunna be there."

the japanese must have been having REALLY good thoughts about that bombardment

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Yup.

ok.

Here's the OOB>

3 Modified Infantry divisions (extra strength) + 4 ENG units (extra strength)

why: Well for one, so that i wouldn't have to put 3x the number of LCU's in the test. Second, in order to make the tracking of casualties/losses easier.

This test represents a high powered bombardment against a high density target. Size 3 base.


41st USA INF div

USA Rfile-- 500
USA ENG-- 50
81mm----- 50
4.2in------- 50
37AT-------50
75pack---- 50
105-------- 50
155-------- 50
ENG--------50
support---- 700

3rd USA INF Div

USA Rfile-- 500
USA ENG-- 50
81mm----- 50
4.2in------- 50
37AT-------50
75pack---- 50
105-------- 50
155-------- 50
ENG--------50
support---- 700

32nd USA INF Div

USA Rfile-- 500
USA ENG-- 50
81mm----- 50
4.2in------- 50
37AT-------50
75pack---- 50
105-------- 50
155-------- 50
ENG--------50
support---- 700

101st BASE FORCE

USMC RS---500
Support-----500
0.5 MG------100
Av Support-500
Support-----100
Eng----------100
Eng Veh--- -100

102nd BASE FORCE

USMC RS---500
Support-----500
0.5 MG------100
Av Support-500
Support-----100
Eng----------100
Eng Veh--- -50

103rd BASE FORCE

USMC RS---500
Support-----500
0.5 MG------100
Av Support-500
Support-----100
Eng----------100
Eng Veh--- -50

104th BASE FORCE

USMC RS---500
Support-----500
0.5 MG------100
Av Support-500
Support-----100
Eng----------100
Eng Veh--- -50

"It's still up!" BOOM "No it ain't."

Interesting. Betcha that most of the "disablements" will be in the base forces. Will the base be fully supplied?

41st USA INF div

USA Rfile-- 495(4)
USA ENG-- 48(2)
81mm----- 48(2)
4.2in------- 50
37AT-------47(2)
75pack---- 47(3)
105-------- 46(4)
155-------- 50
ENG--------46(2)
support---- 692(8)

Disruption=70
Fatigue=17

3rd USA INF Div

USA Rfile-- 500
USA ENG-- 49(1)
81mm----- 48(1)
4.2in------- 50
37AT-------50
75pack---- 49(1)
105-------- 50
155-------- 50
ENG--------48(1)
support---- 699(1)

Disruption = 2
Fatigue = 8

32nd USA INF Div

USA Rfile-- 499(1)
USA ENG-- 50
81mm----- 50
4.2in------- 49(1)
37AT-------50
75pack---- 50
105-------- 50
155-------- 50
ENG--------50
support---- 699(1)

Disruption = 0
Fatigue = 5

101st BASE FORCE

USMC RS---480(13)
Support-----482(17)
0.5 MG------88(4)
Av Support-484(12)
Support-----86(10)
Eng----------93(4)
Eng Veh--- -90(1)

Disruption = 53
Fatigue= 33



102nd BASE FORCE

USMC RS---487(7)
Support-----483(12)
0.5 MG------93(5)
Av Support-485(12)
Support-----97(1)
Eng----------85(10)
Eng Veh--- -47

Disruption = 48
Fatigue = 31


103rd BASE FORCE

USMC RS---483(13)
Support-----481(14)
0.5 MG------96(2)
Av Support-483(13)
Support-----97(2)
Eng----------94(4)
Eng Veh--- -44(1)

Disruption = 53
Fatigue = 30


104th BASE FORCE

USMC RS---481(13)
Support-----482(13)
0.5 MG------91(5)
Av Support-480(14)
Support-----94(5)
Eng----------91(7)
Eng Veh--- -41(3)

Disruption = 51
Fatigue = 30

Total of permanent losses:

41st USA INF div

USA Rfile-- 1
USA ENG-- 0
81mm----- 0
4.2in------- 0
37AT-------1
75pack---- 0
105-------- 0
155-------- 0
ENG--------2
support---- 0


3rd USA INF Div

USA Rfile-- 0
USA ENG-- 0
81mm----- 1
4.2in------- 0
37AT-------0
75pack---- 0
105-------- 0
155-------- 0
ENG--------1
support---- 0

32nd USA INF Div

USA Rfile-- 0
USA ENG-- 0
81mm----- 0
4.2in------- 0
37AT-------0
75pack---- 0
105-------- 0
155-------- 0
ENG--------0
support---- 0



101st BASE FORCE

USMC RS---7
Support-----1
0.5 MG------8
Av Support-4
Support-----4
Eng----------3
Eng Veh--- -9


102nd BASE FORCE

USMC RS---6
Support-----5
0.5 MG------2
Av Support-3
Support-----2
Eng----------5
Eng Veh--- -3


103rd BASE FORCE

USMC RS---4
Support-----5
0.5 MG------2
Av Support-4
Support-----1
Eng----------2
Eng Veh--- -5


104th BASE FORCE

USMC RS---6
Support-----5
0.5 MG------4
Av Support-6
Support-----1
Eng----------2
Eng Veh--- -6

Sum total of losses from front line units during the "tactical nuke"

USA Rfile-- 1
USA ENG-- 0
81mm------1
4.2in-------0
37AT-------1
75pack---- 0
105--------0
155--------0
ENG--------3
support---- 0


Total losses among airfield/port '2nd line troops'


USMC RS---23
Support-----16
0.5 MG------16
Av Support-17
Support-----8
Eng----------12
Eng Veh--- -23

I did a number of tests today, this one was meerly the final (and best) example. Here is what i found and/or confirmed from past testings.

1. Tacitcal nukes? uh uh.

2. Sea Bombardment works similar to airfield/port attack missions for aircraft i.e., its the support (ENG/AA etc) that take the brunt of the damage. I tested 1 div....2 div, then 2 div and two ENG, then finally just the two ENG units. When ENG units were present, "casualties" were much higher...double or more.

3. Note the disruption figures for the 2nd and 3rd front line LCU....they were barely affected at all by the bombardment. All LCU's are not impacted equally or as sevrely

4. Recon of a hex can increase casualties by two fold When running the same "Nuke" test without first having flow at least 1 recon mission, casualties were 50% as seen in this example consistantly (1900 - 2200 casualties vs the 4400ish)

5. Just as with the retreat tests i did....95+% of the "casualties" are disablements, not actual destruction of property or lives.

oh suppose i should mention there were 108 aircraft present 36 Liberators and 72 SBD [;)]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I did a number of tests today, this one was meerly the final (and best) example. Here is what i found and/or confirmed from past testings.

1. Tacitcal nukes? uh uh.

2. Sea Bombardment works similar to airfield/port attack missions for aircraft i.e., its the support (ENG/AA etc) that take the brunt of the damage. I tested 1 div....2 div, then 2 div and two ENG, then finally just the two ENG units. When ENG units were present, "casualties" were much higher...double or more.

3. Note the disruption figures for the 2nd and 3rd front line LCU....they were barely affected at all by the bombardment. All LCU's are not impacted equally or as sevrely

4. Recon of a hex can increase casualties by two fold When running the same "Nuke" test without first having flow at least 1 recon mission, casualties were 50% as seen in this example consistantly (1900 - 2200 casualties vs the 4400ish)

5. Just as with the retreat tests i did....95+% of the "casualties" are disablements, not actual destruction of property or lives.

This is good news Nik. Thanks for doing the leg work. Out of curiosity, what do you suppose drives the outrageous Casualties report. Besides FoW that is?

Total losses in the test above: 121 squads destroyed, 264 disrupted = 385 squads hits

385 * 12 men (roughly) = 4620 casualties shown by the game

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent


Total losses in the test above: 121 squads destroyed, 264 disrupted = 385 squads hits

385 * 12 men (roughly) = 4620 casualties shown by the game

Nik's right about who gets hit the hardest. It's the engineers almost every time, especially air support squads I've noticed.

The total losses are still too high, or can be, and often are. Also, why always the engineers and support? Plus there's the factor of malarial bases thrown in, where this stuff won't come back so easy.

I've been meaning to start a thread on that issue. There seems to be a logical hole in the system insofar as static CDs are sometimes stuck at malarial bases with no way to be rotated in and out, and so like Dugout Doug they just sort of . . . fade away?