Realistic Results: what are these things, what aren't they?

[2ndACR]

TristanJohn,
I have read most of your posts and feel that the game you want can not be built to your satisfaction. Not enough time or money.
You want a completely historical game, to have that you have to make only the same moves as history, as soon as you deviate from there history is out the window. Give up and dont buy the game. Join the military and quit playing armchair bookworm warrior.

On a personal note the way you talk to people on this forum, you better be glad it is on the net, because if you ever confronted me in person that way you would most likely pick yourself up off the ground.

Sorry to everyone, but he gets on my nerves. Keep up the good work Mogami.

[Tristanjohn]

"You read the AAR. Get real or get serious or get something useful, Mogami. Please"

Where in that AAR do you see anything usefull concerning CD units?

Let me be sure I have this right.

You read my post concerning CD units, with the total sheet of the damage done by those CD units, and you found nothing useful in that report with regard to this discussion?

[mogami]

Hi You just sent in unescorted tranports. You set up your TF's so it takes several days to unload. So you have unescorted TF's sitting for several days getting shot at. I don't find anything usefull in this report.
You noticed that only the transport Tf's could return fire. What was your
genius response? (to set other TF's to bombard) Why I wonder did you not just transfer in a few ships to those transport TF's (they had to be in same hex)(It has been explained many times up in the war-room how to set up invasion TF's.)

Most UV vets can send a TF and have it empty and on it's way home daylight of the 2nd day. (arrive at night, begin unloading, unload day phase, finsh night phase and be heading back daylight )

[IronDuke_slith]

"The Japanese shot at lots of stuff throughout the war with land-based rifles. They didn't hit much. The "why" of this fact is immateiral at this scale of modeling, though if anyone could come up with the specific why's and wherefor's of this bad markmanship I'd be more than happy to listen.

But for the purpose of this model all we need concern ourselves with is the hisitorical fact: CDs weren't particularly effective and at no time in the war did any such defense prove effective against an amphibious invasion

We have covered this. Often they were not attempting to be effective in the manner you are complaining about.However, saying something was not historically effective does not mean that it couldn't have been historically effective if employed different or better.

"The model does not allow any ready means to shoot back at CDs. At least not efficiently."


It does allow you to shoot back although everyone agrees it could be more efficient, point agreed.


"Per my example on model theory written a few days ago, if we assign a bad value of, say, .9 (this would be .1 off of our model ideal value of 1.0) to each of these mistaken features we are forced into a function of .9 * .9 and are bound to end up worse than we started.

We began with a bad feature of .9 value for CD units and added another bad feature (inability of transport TFs to return fire) of equal value and when those combine within the game system we're taken in the opposite direction from where we wish to go: always to an ideal model value of 1.0.

The result of the above bad function is .81 which is .09 worse (further away) than our starting value of .9 was from the ideal model value.

See what I mean?"


No, I'm sorry, I don't. If you are saying that CD effectiveness is overrated, and that this error is compounded by the paucity of return fire from the invading ships, then I understand. The maths don't illuminate or help illustrate your point, though.


"Including CDs in the game was probably a bad idea to start. If the developers just have to include CDs then the effectiveness of these assets must be diminished and a new TF-organization scheme devised whereby naval assets can reasonably defend themselves. Currently only CD units may play the CD game.

Is that clearer?"


If they weren't there, someone on this forum would have (quite rightly) have asked for them.

If "Is that clearer" is not meant as a rhetorical insult, then I'd have to say no, as I already understood your argument, just didn't agree with it.


"Originally Posted by IronDuke
That was a tactical choice on their part. Isn't the point of these simulations that we choose different strategies and employ weapons systems slightly differently in order to see if we can do better than our historical counterparts.

Sure. If those weapon systems are modelled corrrectly to begin with. In this case CD was not modelled correctly but incorrectly"


This is getting circular. You're saying CDs are modelled incorrectly. I'm saying the historical inneffectiveness (against transports which is what is at issue) was partly a matter of choice and tactics, and partly a matter of the Allies avoiding them. The incorrectness you believe you see in the game is therefore the result of a different strategy. The Allies are not avoiding them (they are invading) and the Japanese are engaging transports rather than landing craft.
"Quote:

We know CD units could contain sufficient calibre weapons to penetrate the armour of ships offshore, and we know those ships were often sitting ducks (whether they were shot at or not) because they were in confined spaces, side on to open up all their armament, and moving at low speeds because of the volume of traffic. If something is possible the simulation has to try and re-create it.

Well, by your reasoning we ought to just allow "Zeroes" to run rampant through the skies until the advent of the Tomcat"

CD units had the capability (sufficient calibre and stationary/slow moving targets within range) to hit and hurt. Zeros did not have the performance characteristics to run rampant. I am not saying anything of the kind, however much it suits you to say I am.


"We don't want to change history with historical simulations"


If we are only trying to model it, what is the point of playing, then? We're not changing the characteristics of any weapon, merely it's terms of engagement.

[mogami]

Hi, There is one major change in WITP concerning CD units.
They are much harder to move. Many of the units in WITP can never move. (The smallest part is larger then any transport) This is because the guns have become part of a structure that can not be moved.
So you don't have to worry about Japanese Home Island CD's being used on atolls. There are still smaller CD units that can be relocated.
It will be worth the effort of the players to know what they are landing on.

[Snigbert]

CD batteries are an integral part of island defense. They weren't very effective because they are easily neutralized, however their presence in the defense forces the attacker to bring a bombardment TF or air power sufficient to neutralize them. I see CDs similar to minefields, easy to deal with if you bring the right tools. However, since said tools are in a limited supply, placement of CDs and mines prevents the enemy from attacking every base he wants anywhere/anytime he wants.

[Mike Scholl]

Could the two of you be talking about two, similar, but different things here?

Coastal Defense Guns were by defination large guns implaced mainly to fire at ships supporting a possible landing.

Coastal Defense Units were units designed to defend a beach area. They would have had infantry, mortars, machine guns, and light artillery.

It seems to me that Mogami is talking about the Coastal Defense Unit and TristanJohn is talking about Coastal Defense Guns.

NOMAD seems to be onto a possible explanation for a lot of confusion.
A COAST DEFENSE UNIT (like the Marine bn. on Wake) is an "all-arms"
unit for defense of ports and landing areas. It usually, but not always,
has some Coast Defense Artillery assigned to it of 3" to 6" calibre. These
guns are semi-mobile (to travel with the unit) but generally "fixed" when
emplaced for use against ships. They also include a "sighting and range
finding" detachment and a "plotting" unit for dealing with naval targets.

But the COAST ARTILLERY BRANCH also mans more permanent Coast
Defenses---and these have much greater ability to engage ships. The
Japanese home Islands had a number of such Fortifications, and so
did US Possessions like Manilla Bay, Oahu, the Panama Canal, and the
West Coast. Truk might qualify, but I've never seen details of the
Japanese works there. These aren't just a bunch of Guns---they are
a "system". In action they are "super accurate" because they are
solidly fixed in place, and their area of engagement accurately pre-
plotted not just to range, but including factors like tidal conditions and
ambient temperature and gun wear and the like. The most important
factor is their ranging equipment---even before radar. A ship is limited
in the "base" for it's range finders to what the ship can carry---even the
largest BB can't mount much more than a 90' range finder. And computing the long sides of a triangle with a base of 90 ft and sides of
several miles is an inexact science. On land the "base ends" can also
be permanently implaced---but can be several miles distant and have
and have a third and fourth station for cross-checking. The exact range
can be computed down to a few yards. Coupled to the rest of the"system" it makes hits an order of magnitude more likely. Which is
why navies generally avoided engaging such places. The Japanese didn't
try to "storm" Manilla Bay or Singapore, they took them from behind
overland. And the US nutralized Truk, but didn't try to take it.

Just Coast Defense Guns by themselves aren't as dangerous. They
have some advantage over ships from stability and the difficulty of
spotting them for accurate return fire. And a ship is a bigger target than
just a gun. But their sighting and rangefinding equipment isn't superior
(I'm leaving radar out of the equasion---but obviously if one side has it
and the other doesn't it will play a part.) It could be that 2by3 is giving
the guns attached to Coast Defense Units an unjustifiably larger hit
percentage based on the capabilities of permanent Coast Defense
Fortification Systems. And would be a relatively simple thing to fix.
And I agree with TristanJohn's point about "mobile" Coast Defense Guns
needing several days to a week to be emplaced and ready to fire. Needs
a lot of surveying and communications gear emplacement before they
are ready to engage naval targets.

[mogami]

Hi, I've been using scenario 14 to test CD units. I moved 102 Japanese guns to Lunga. (3 CD units).
Then I sent 4 AP with escorts to Lunga. 3 of the AP were damaged (while troops unloaded) One of the 3 CD units (the one with the largest guns) suffered approx 1/3 loss. (AP were present at Lunga for 3 unload periods so they were shot at 3 times. )

WITP changes already installed. Units require 100 turns to become fully effective. So a unit selected to defend a hex needs 100 turns and a unit selected to attack a hex needs 100 turns. Prior to gaining full readiness the unit is reduced.

Strategy tips for Scen 14.
Scenario 14 looks like a very tough scenario for human Japanese.
USN can capture Lunga on Aug 3rd and there is nothing the Japanese can do to prevent this. On turn 1 make FT large enough to carry 1st Mar Rgt. (Load only troops) make another FT with 2-4 DD load supply transfer these ships into first FT TF. If you want North Carolina to be present for battles make sure she is in FT TF. Now make a bombardment TF with 15 of your remaining ships. Set this TF to follow the FT TF. (now you will over power any IJN TF you meet. The IJN cannot arrive before you do. (So your 1 Rgt will have to fight 2 Japanese engineer units.) Stand the carrier groups down. (rest the pilots) Your CV will not be needed for the first 10-15 days. (No IJN CV arrive before this) As a result the USN CV will be in good shape when needed. Send the AO, AK, 3k AP back to Noumea. (no sense using Luganvilles stockpiles, use Noumeas.)
Once you capture Lunga you will need to keep the unit supplied.
Move a seabee with supply by fast transport to Irau. (Build only the airfield. ) Use only FT TF's while building airfields on Lunga and Irau and moving units. (move one of your CD units to Lunga. As well as baseforce and engineer units.) Drop fuel and supply loaded from Noumea at Wunpuko. (have the 3k AP gather up the Americal Div and move it to Wunpuko.-the Japanese will not be sending invasions to Noumea or Efate)
Once you have an airfield on both Lunga and Irau with support and 1-2 fighter groups you can use your AK to move supply and 1.5k AP to move troops. (and you can still FT with APD/DD/CL/DM/DMS)
Set all your airgroups to rest on turn 1. (move out of Port Moresby with groups- your not abandoning this base only moving groups to where they can rest up. You want 3-4 fighter groups at Morale 99 Fatigue 0 before returning.) Don't fly (transfer) in bad weather.

Expect the Japanese to send FT/bombardment TF's to Lunga. They can't hurt you. Hopefully on turn 2 you encounter and destroy the ships Japan has down south at start.
It will be around the middle of the month before Japanese CV arrive (and move to Rabaul/Shortlands)

The game is already in the bag on turn 3 (when you capture Lunga)
The rest is just preparing to meet the Japanese after the 15th.
Your primary target will be Japanese surface ships and CV. Once you deplete these you can move to next base. (inside fighter CAP from Lunga) As you aquire new bases you set up the routine to repeat for next target. Slow and steady. I can't see how the Japanese can stop you.

[Tristanjohn]

WITP changes already installed. Units require 100 turns to become fully effective. So a unit selected to defend a hex needs 100 turns and a unit selected to attack a hex needs 100 turns. Prior to gaining full readiness the unit is reduced.

That's not a solution--it's another problem!

But let's be sure we're clear.

In WitP it's going to require a little over 2 1/2 months for any unit to to become 100% efficient once it moves from one hex to another?

That's a joke, right? Or have you misstated the rule?

[Tristanjohn]

Hi, I've been using scenario 14 to test CD units. I moved 102 Japanese guns to Lunga. (3 CD units).
Then I sent 4 AP with escorts to Lunga. 3 of the AP were damaged (while troops unloaded) One of the 3 CD units (the one with the largest guns) suffered approx 1/3 loss. (AP were present at Lunga for 3 unload periods so they were shot at 3 times. )

If I recall my opponent moved five CDs onto Lunga, but you can check the OOB and see if that's possible.

No matter, I've posted the actual in-game results in terms of damage to Allied shipping from that strategy. And for all I know those CDs of his had a couple bad days and next time their shooting might be better still!

[mogami]

Hi, Yes the Japanese player can move 5 CD units to Lunga. (If you let him) The US player can arrive Lunga on same turn and prevent any Japanese unit from landing. And capture the base the next day.

To move 5 CD's Japanese player would load from Rabaul 3 units on 1 Aug. (homeport Shortlands) They would arrive night of 2 Aug (TF would return to Shortlands) On 3rd TF would refuel. On 4th TF would load 2 Units. It would not be a terrible thing for the Allied player. Since now all bases below Truk have no CD units. (But Lunga would have 150+ guns defending)

And no the PP is not a hex to hex thing. Every unit has an objective.
It takes 100 days to be fully prepared to defend or capture this hex.
However the unit can move and fight in the meantime. (On turn 1 I assign Port Moresby as objective to Bde located at Saigon. By the time the unit redeploys it will have progressed towards being fully prepared to make the attack.
Unit lands in North Malaya with Singapore as objective. It fights it's way south. It arrives prepared.
Units that begin scenarios as assault troops (the Marines in South Pacific Scen 14) Start with 100 points. (The Japanese CD would be 0's if relocated to Lunga)

[Daniel Oskar]

First a little background. I'm a retired Marine Officer/Naval Aviator, and my last tour was as a primary flight instructor. In my last fleet squadron I was the unit Weapons and Tactics Instructor. What I am getting at is that I know a little more than the average guy when it comes to training and combat effectiveness. I would submit that total flight time, closely followed by quality of training are the biggest factors influencing pilot experience. A young pilot, with less that 300 hours devotes a considerable amount of his attention just flying the aircraft. He has to concentrate on basic skills like maintaining formation, navigating, managing fuel, ect... As experience increases the effort devoted to these tasks diminishes, they become second nature, almost subconcious. This makes the aviator a dangerous man, as now his time in the air is almost entirely devoted to the mission at hand. Statistics from the Naval Safety Center put a number on when this happens, at around 1100+ hours. Obviously quality of training is a big factor, as flying around the traffic pattern for 1100 hours is unlikely to make you the ace of the base. The best quality of training is combat, but it is also the most unforgiving of mistakes. I can't give you data for the USAAC, but I do have some stats on the USN/USMC and IJN as far as experience is concerned. The minimum time to qualify for front line service, in hours, is as follows:

year USN IJN
1941 305 700
1942 305 700
1943 500 500
1944 525 225
1945 525 90

These were the minimums. At the start of the war ~50% of USN pilots had 305-600 hours, ~25% had 600-1000, and the rest had 1000+. On the IJN side I dont have as detailed numbers, but we can assume a similar distribution of skill, with the benifit of many of the seasoned aviators having flown combat in China. As a final note, USN/USMC aviators were training together untill assignment to a tactical squadron. Following that, often the USMC lapsed in carrier landing proficiency with a resulting slight increase in mishap rate initially when returning to shipboard operations.

Tristanjohn, Figured I'd just quote myself and save the digging.

[Tristanjohn]

Dan, I did read that at the time but found nothing to quibble with. Thank you for the input.

Speaking strictly as a former leg it should come as no surprise that what you've written floats mostly "over my head," but once in awhile even a Marine should enjoy a friendly nod from the Army.

[mogami]

Hi, I'm running a UV scenario 14 versus the AI. I will run a WITP scenario 14 when it is ready. (only a few working WITP scenarios at this point)

I'll post the WITP version here once I can run it.
All settings are normal

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/01/42

Weather: Rain

Air attack on Gili Gili , at 17,42

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 24
G4M1 Betty x 13

Allied aircraft

no losses

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Kittyhawk x 2 destroyed
P-40E Kittyhawk x 1 damaged

Runway hits 1

Attacking Level Bombers:
13 x G4M1 Betty at 6000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fisrt I am going to send the Marines via fast transport to capture Lunga and Tulagi.
Second I'm going to collect all the B-17 and deploy them out of Port Moresby. Their
mission is to destry the port and airfield at Shortlands
Third the USN CV are going to wait for IJN CV to arrive and then they are going to go
seek them out and offer battle.
Fourth move troops to Port Moresby to secure New Guinea.
Last build up Lunga and defend it. Then use it as a base to move up towards Shortlands and
Rabaul. I intend to keep loses as low as possible.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/02/42

Weather: Partly Cloudy

USMC Rgt arrive Tulagi and Lunga. Seabee also Lunga. Supply TF to arrive tonight.
7th Aus Div loading for transport to PM. Mission to capture Buna and nieghboring bases.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/03/42

Weather: Clear

Sub attack near Luganville at 53,53

Japanese Ships
SS I-174, Shell hits 4, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
CA Portland
CL Hobart
DD Monssen


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Lunga

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 1946 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 5731 troops, 52 guns, 26 vehicles



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Tulagi

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 2547 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 4331 troops, 52 guns, 6 vehicles



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Lunga

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 4331 troops, 52 guns, 6 vehicles

Defending force 1946 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles

Allied assault odds: 4 to 1 (fort level 1)

Allied forces CAPTURE Lunga base !!!


Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 27

Allied ground losses:
Men lost 68


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Tulagi

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 4331 troops, 52 guns, 6 vehicles

Defending force 3765 troops, 6 guns, 0 vehicles

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

Allied Assault reduces fortifications to 0


Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 27

Allied ground losses:
Men lost 131


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will send another Rgt to capture Tulagi. Airfield on Lunga is 54 percent complete (lev 1)

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/04/42

Weather: Thunderstorms

Ground combat at Tulagi

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 2530 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 4199 troops, 52 guns, 6 vehicles



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Tulagi

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 4199 troops, 52 guns, 6 vehicles

Defending force 3731 troops, 6 guns, 0 vehicles

Allied assault odds: 4 to 1 (fort level 0)

Allied forces CAPTURE Tulagi base !!!


Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 3943
Guns lost 6

Allied ground losses:
Men lost 109


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No need for a second Rgt to Tulagi. Those Seabee units work fast Lunga level 1
(6% towards lev 2) Now to move a baseforce there.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/05/42

Weather: Partly Cloudy

Sub attack at 18,27

Japanese Ships
DD Asakaze

Allied Ships
SS Grenadier


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on Lunga , at 38,40

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 7

no losses

Runway hits 1

Attacking Level Bombers:
7 x G4M1 Betty at 6000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseforce sent to Lunga. USMC Rgt going to capture Tassafaronga. 4k Supply being sent.
Still waiting for B-17's to repair so I can begin moving them.


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/06/42

Weather: Partly Cloudy

Night Time Surface Combat, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese Ships
CA Chokai, Shell hits 1
CA Aoba, Shell hits 5, on fire
CA Kinugasa, Shell hits 2
CA Furutaka, Shell hits 4, on fire
CA Kako, Shell hits 4
CL Yubari, Shell hits 1
DD Mutsuki, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Mochizuki, Shell hits 2
DD Yuzuki, Shell hits 20, on fire, heavy damage
DD Yunagi

Allied Ships
CA Minneapolis, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CA San Francisco, Shell hits 2
CA Quincy, Shell hits 2
CA Vincennes, Shell hits 3, heavy damage
CLAA San Juan, Shell hits 4, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Helm, Shell hits 3, on fire
DD Mugford
DD Ralph Talbot
DD Henley
DD Patterson, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Jarvis, Shell hits 1
DD Benham
DD Ellet
DD Wilson
DD Maury


Allied ground losses:
Men lost 226


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 30,35

Japanese Ships
CA Chokai, Torpedo hits 2, on fire

Allied Ships
SS Grayling


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on Lunga , at 38,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 26
G4M1 Betty x 17

no losses

Attacking Level Bombers:
14 x G4M1 Betty at 6000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 6000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 30,35

Japanese Ships
CA Chokai, on fire

Allied Ships
SS Grayling


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 30,35

Japanese Ships
CA Kako

Allied Ships
SS Grayling


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface battle. TF delievered Baseforce. First fighter group arrives Lunga.
damaged ships are making for Tulagi. Good Job Grayling. (will get to return to PH )
6 out of 8 B-17 groups move to Townsville to prepare for move to PM.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/07/42

Weather: Partly Cloudy

Sub attack at 36,38

Japanese Ships
DD Yuzuki, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
SS Tuna


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 36,38

Japanese Ships
DD Yuzuki, on fire, heavy damage (sunk end of turn)

Allied Ships
SS Tuna


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Port Moresby at 10,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 23
A6M3 Zero x 11
G4M1 Betty x 12

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 18
P-40E Kittyhawk x 17

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 3 destroyed
A6M3 Zero x 1 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 4 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra x 3 destroyed
P-40E Kittyhawk x 3 destroyed
P-40E Kittyhawk x 2 damaged

2LT C. Sullivan of 39th FS is credited with kill number 2

Allied Ships
AK Asphalion
AK Rhesus
AK Murada

Attacking Level Bombers:
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
1 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Port Moresby at 10,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 20
A6M3 Zero x 18
G4M1 Betty x 9

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 15
P-40E Kittyhawk x 17

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3 Zero x 1 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 1 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 8 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra x 3 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra x 1 damaged
P-40E Kittyhawk x 2 destroyed

Allied Ships
AP Katoomba
AP Orungal

Attacking Level Bombers:
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Tassafaronga

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 4331 troops, 52 guns, 6 vehicles

Defending force 966 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles

Allied assault odds: 38 to 1 (fort level 0)

Allied forces CAPTURE Tassafaronga base !!!


Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 689

Allied ground losses:
Men lost 10


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Damaged ships from 1st Naval battle of Guadalcanal 2 CA 1 CLAA 2 DD in port Tulagi.

Results of aircombat over PM

3xA6M2
2xA6M3
5xG4M1

6xP-39D
5xP-40E

Lunga now size 2 (28% to lev 3)

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/08/42

Weather: Clear

Air attack on Lunga , at 38,40

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 15

no losses

Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 3

Attacking Level Bombers:
15 x G4M1 Betty at 6000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Port Moresby at 10,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 20
G4M1 Betty x 6

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 16
P-40E Kittyhawk x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty x 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra x 1 destroyed
P-40E Kittyhawk x 1 destroyed
P-40E Kittyhawk x 1 damaged


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Port Moresby at 10,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 19
G4M1 Betty x 4

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 12
P-40E Kittyhawk x 12

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 2 destroyed


Allied Ships
AK Neleus, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage (52 sys )

Attacking Level Bombers:
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3xA6M2 shot down
1xG4M1 shot down

1xP-39D shot down
1xP-40E shot down

(score tied at 13 Air to Air loss) Total AC lost to date 28 Japanese 18 Allied
(Based on pilot kills 7 Japanese shot down by P-40E 6 by P-39D top pilot P-39D 2 kills)
All fires out on ships in port Tulagi.