Jump to content


Photo

GQ3.3 AAR - 1942 South Pacific


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 cooldiscodan31

cooldiscodan31

    Private

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 22 March 2023 - 10:22 AM

This is my 4th or 5th game of GQ3.3 mostly still focusing on getting comfortable with all the surface engagement rules before branching out into Aerial and Submarine rules.   Attached is the excel sheet with the order of battle and the Crudely drawn map of the engagement.  B  Also at the end of the post you can see my crudely drawn map of the entire engagement.  This was played at 1cm = 200yds a scale I feel fits a 6x4 table really well but was played with some too big of models at 1:1800 which is the size my Pacific fleets are modeled in.  The Images did not pull through but they are on my Blog if you want to see the AAR with pics, link in the signature.   Thanks for reading!  

 

 

 

 

Turn 1 – USN Task Force enters the battlefield from the SW corner with the Cruiser Division lead by the USS Northampton, USS New Orleans, USS Indianapolis, USS Salt Lake City at 10 knots at bearing 48 degrees NE.   The 4 Destroyer divisions increased speed to 20 knots splitting into 2 groups of 2 to intercept the Japanese destroyers.  The Left Flank consisted of the USS Dale and the USS Mahan, the Right Flank included the USS Ellet and the USS Jarvis.  

The IJN Cruiser force began their Naval bombardment of the Island fortifications with the cruiser division lead by the IJN Kinugasa.  This division consisted of the Light Cruisers Kinugasa, Aoba, Tenryu and Yuburi.   This bombardment was screen by a Destroyer Squadron of the Shirayuki, Hatsuyuki and Yunagi. 

With the Japanese destroyers moving at 20 knots to intercept the USN Task Force opened fire from the 8” guns on the Northampton and the New Orleans scoring massive hits on the Shirayuki taking out her aft X Turret, hitting a torpedo tube and starting a fire on her deck, breaching the Bulkhead causing flooding in the lower decks, and jamming the rudder to her Port. 

The Japanese Cruiser division began their bombardment with the 8” guns of the Kingugasa and Aoba and the 5.5” guns of the Tenryu and Yuburi with the only successful hit from Aoba hitting some field works.

 

Turn 2  - With no returning fire from the IJN Destroyers the USN continued to close the distance.  The US Cruisers holding 10 knots allowing the USS Ellet and USS Jarvis to move pasted the cruisers.  The US Destroyers both increasing seed to 30 knots and moving to engage the Japanese destroyers.  

The IJN cruisers continued their slow 10 knot crawl while bombarding the islands scoring 2 bombardment hits.

The Shirayuki unable to repair the bulkhead damage continued to circle to port with it’s jammed rudder and quickly flooding hull it’s speed was quickly reduced to 15 knots.   Shirayuki breaks off from the Squadron as she circles. The US Task Force continued to pummel the Shirayuki with 8” shells causing another fire to break out on the deck and the ship beginning to list and then topple over into the sea.  

The Aoba staring down the central island with the US Task Force appearing in the background

 

Turn 3 – Shirayuki taking on water at listing badly she rolls over and sinks to the bottom of the sea.  The Americans have drawn first blood.  The remaining Japanese destroyers answer back the Hatsuyuki launches a spread of 4 Type 93 Torpedoes and the Yunagi Launches a spread of 3 Type 90 Torpedoes.   In an exchange with the USS Ellet the IJN Destroyers score several hits on the American destroyer hitting a torpedo mount,5” Gun Turret, and hitting the engineering room.   The Americans continue their advance towards the IJN Cruisers with the Dale and Mahan continuing a flanking maneuver to the rear of the destroyer formation.  The US Cruisers continue their shelling of the remaining IJN Destroyers.  Scoring more several direct hits.

 

Turn 4 -  2 Torpedoes from the Hatsuyuki slam into the Hull of the USS Indianapolis crippling the US Cruiser forcing it to fall out of line.  The US Cruisers change their heading towards the ESE to intercept the south sailing IJN Cruisers.  The Destroyers continue to trade 5” shells with the IJN launching a second salvo of Torpedoes towards the American cruisers.

 

Turn 5 – The Yunagi suddenly slows causing the US Destroyer Ellet to slam into the Starboard side of the Japanese destroyer breaching the hull the Yunagi sinking in mere minutes.   But the Yunagi does get off one last Salvo of torpedoes before sinking.  The Hatsuyuki launchs their last spread of torpedoes and changes course to return to the Cruiser division who has begun to engage the US Cruisers.  The Japanses cuiser launches their Torpedo spread towards the US Cruisers. 

 

Turn 6 – Facing fire from both Japanese Light Cruisers the USS Ellet is forced to withdraw from the engagement with severe hull damage and loss of nearly all their man guns.  The USS Northampton and USS New Orleans land several hits on the Kinugasa and the Aoba with fires breaking out on the Floatplane deck of the Kinugasa with their man guns but in the exchange the Northampton loses a secondary gun, and their aft main guns.  

 

Turn 7 – The fire between the US Cruisers and the IJN Cruisers starts to intensify.   The crew of the Kinugasa is unable to put out the fire as an 8” shell hits the a torpedo mount igniting a second fire.   The US Navy has the upper hand in the cruiser engagement at this point.

 

Turn 8 – With fires ravishing the Kinugasa two shells from the US Cruisers break the Bulkheads of Aoba causing flooding.   The USS Jarvis launches a set of torpedoes under the intense fire of both Japanese Light Cruisers.   Japanese at this point foresee a humiliating defeat trying everything they can to regain speed and withdraw from the engagement.

 

Turn 9 – Things are too late for the Tenryu as fire from the American cruisers rip through the hull and cause her to sink under the waves as well as the Hatsayuki which was badly crippled and starting to roll finally rolls over and sinks.  The IJN has now lost 3 destroyers, 1 Light Cruiser.  With the remaining Heavy Cruisers badly damaged.

 

Turn 10 – With one last ditch effort the Kinugasa and Aoba launch torpedoes but these torpedoes and the ones from the Yuburi earlier will all miss the US Task Force. 

 

Turn 11 – This signaled the end of the engagement with the Kinugasa barely holding 5 knots with 2 fires still raging on the deck and the Aoba taking water fast.  Neither ship would make it back to the fleet as the Aoba would continue taking on water and sink not more than 30 minutes after the Americans break off contact.  The Kinugasa would see a no better fate forced to abandon ship she would need to be scuttled. 

Final Map of the Action (Roughly drawn)

 

 

 

Final score:

USN:   20 VP for the USN Successfully sweeping the islands sinking 3 IJN Destroyers, 1 IJN Light Cruiser and Crippling 2 IJN Heavy Cruisers. 

IJN:  Would score a lowly 6 VP.  Only able to maintain 4 turns of Bombardment on the islands and only managing to cripple 2 Destroyers and 1 Heavy Cruiser

Attached Files


  • Kenny Noe and healey36 like this

Jeff Amey

Minnesota Wargamer

 

My Blog


#2 healey36

healey36

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 744 posts
  • LocationMaryland USA

Posted 22 March 2023 - 01:22 PM

Nice session. I've not played much WWII, but we're headed that way eventually, likely at 1/4800-scale.

 

"...the Crudely drawn map of the engagement..."; seems lovely compared to what we come up with. I'll have to share this with the ump and goad him into upping his game.



#3 cooldiscodan31

cooldiscodan31

    Private

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 22 March 2023 - 02:19 PM

Nice session. I've not played much WWII, but we're headed that way eventually, likely at 1/4800-scale.

 

"...the Crudely drawn map of the engagement..."; seems lovely compared to what we come up with. I'll have to share this with the ump and goad him into upping his game.

 

I haven't started my Atlantic Fleets but I'm debating between 1/2400 or 1/4800 scale for those.  The GHQ models I have are beautiful but 1/2400


Jeff Amey

Minnesota Wargamer

 

My Blog


#4 healey36

healey36

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 744 posts
  • LocationMaryland USA

Posted 22 March 2023 - 02:53 PM

I haven't started my Atlantic Fleets but I'm debating between 1/2400 or 1/4800 scale for those.  The GHQ models I have are beautiful but 1/2400

1/4800 scale is nice, but finding decent models can be tough. CinC still offers a few sets, and there are quite a few on Shapeways, but nothing comprehensive.

 

1/3000 seems a very good scale, as well, but perhaps even tougher to run down. 

 

Most of our stuff is 1/2400 or 1/6000. If you're rolling out the battlewagons, we find it best to use 1/6000, otherwise you need a lot of real estate to have something that both plays and looks right.



#5 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 616 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 23 March 2023 - 01:20 PM

I'm strictly 1:6000 anymore, but even then, you can run out of table. However, I have a fix for that in a set of interlocking mats. as we approach an edge, I simply pick up the mats we have moved off of and "gently" push what's left towards where I picked the mats up from. I then attach those mats towards where we are heading and there, we are with a good bit of sea in front of us again. The mats run somewhere in the vicinity of $40, but it certainly beats measuring the location of ships and then trying to rearrange them as I used to do. I bought enough to cover a 12'x5' table (i seldom use more than 8'x5').



#6 cooldiscodan31

cooldiscodan31

    Private

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 24 March 2023 - 07:01 AM

I'm strictly 1:6000 anymore, but even then, you can run out of table. However, I have a fix for that in a set of interlocking mats. as we approach an edge, I simply pick up the mats we have moved off of and "gently" push what's left towards where I picked the mats up from. I then attach those mats towards where we are heading and there, we are with a good bit of sea in front of us again. The mats run somewhere in the vicinity of $40, but it certainly beats measuring the location of ships and then trying to rearrange them as I used to do. I bought enough to cover a 12'x5' table (i seldom use more than 8'x5').

Thats what I do with the mats too.  I want to buy another set so I have enough to cover an 8'x6'


Jeff Amey

Minnesota Wargamer

 

My Blog


#7 simanton

simanton

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • 214 posts

Posted 25 March 2023 - 10:47 PM

I remain a Luddite using 1/1200-1/1250!  Lord knows, they've cost me enough since 1969!



#8 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 616 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 26 March 2023 - 04:47 AM

I love the look of 1:1250. I just don't like having to shift the table constantly. If you keep the scenarios small, Rive Plate, Denmark Strait. Then 1:1250 is not so bad. But I campaign as much as I can, and it is not uncommon for there to be upwards of 18 ships (6 cruisers & 12 DDs) per side. I can handle that in 1:6000 with 1 or maybe 2 shifts of the mats. That is not possible with 1:1250.

 

WMC



#9 healey36

healey36

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 744 posts
  • LocationMaryland USA

Posted 26 March 2023 - 07:09 AM

1/1200-1/1250 was the first scale I collected, primarily purchased from a place called The Ship Shop in Annapolis, Maryland. That place is long gone physically, but it remains etched in my brain given all of the time I spent there. Endless cases of ship models, with stacks of kits underneath, and a fabulous collection of naval books and rule-sets at the back. Most of the stuff I bought was made by Superior, who also had started making 1/2400-scale. Eventually I made the leap to 1/2400 and sold all of the 1/1200 stuff. In recent years, however, I've found a few 1/1200 models at estate sales and, if I'm honest, I just can't pass them up. They are wonderful things.

 

Roon class
Roon-class cruiser, manufacturer unknown.


#10 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 616 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 26 March 2023 - 10:37 PM

All my 1:1250 burnt in that Wildfire in 2020. I've replaced the 1:6000 but have no intention of doing so with 1:1250 or the 1:2400 I had. 



#11 Grim

Grim

    Private

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 27 March 2023 - 02:23 PM

That was a great report. I hope for more.
On the scale debate. I went for 1/6000 so ranges seem more appealing to me. But I still have to play my first game.

#12 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 616 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 27 March 2023 - 05:20 PM

After you have seen 1:1250 ships that are well done you are never going to be satisfied with the look of the smaller scales. After you have played with 1:6000 you are going to be hard pressed the next time you play with a larger scale not to miss the ease of play with 1:6000. IMHO what is best depends totally on your prioritizing between look and ease of play. Then there is cost, but this a hobby not a need.



#13 cooldiscodan31

cooldiscodan31

    Private

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 28 March 2023 - 06:30 AM

After you have seen 1:1250 ships that are well done you are never going to be satisfied with the look of the smaller scales. After you have played with 1:6000 you are going to be hard pressed the next time you play with a larger scale not to miss the ease of play with 1:6000. IMHO what is best depends totally on your prioritizing between look and ease of play. Then there is cost, but this a hobby not a need.

 

That is a good way to put it.   I like the detail of the larger scales even with the trade off of playability.  


Jeff Amey

Minnesota Wargamer

 

My Blog


#14 SteveAF

SteveAF

    Private

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 28 March 2023 - 12:17 PM

I have 1/4800 and 1/3000 scale ships and am very happy with them.  They are more esthetically pleasing to me on the 4x6 or 5x7 tables available to me than the larger scales  



#15 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 616 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 28 March 2023 - 04:09 PM

I tend to play on 8"x5" because that is the table I have. But with smaller tables the ability to maneuver 1:6000 longer between table shifts seems to me to give that scale even greater appeal if ease of play is your top priority. The size of table probably has no bearing if the look of the ships is what you find most important. I had a large collection of WWII 1:2400 scale that I was actively adding to from the late 70s all through the 80s and into the 90s. Then I wanted to get into WWI and came across Figurehead. They had everything and where much cheaper while the 1:2400 ranges I was familiar with had a small selection for WWI. So that started me with 1:6000. Once I started playing with 1:6000, the ease of play completely won me over. So, I added WWII to my 1:6000 collection and never touched the 1:2400 again. I have a friend who has a huge collection of 1:1250, we've even done Java Sea using 1:1250. So, I acquired a small collection 1:1250 for small introductory scenarios, River Plate and Denmark Strait as these did not emphasize the table shifts those larger scenarios did while also giving service to the esthetics of the game. But we had a wildfire in 2020 that wiped that all out and I had to start again. I had to choose a scale and for me that is 1:6000. So, IMHO whatever scale suits you are the best scale for you to acquire.

 

WMC






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users