Once the Corsair appears...

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Once the Corsair appears...

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Once the Corsair appears...

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Once the Corsair appears... - 11/15/2003 5:14:28 PM

Angel

Posts: 17
Joined: 4/15/2003
From: France
Status: offline

Once the Corsair is in the game are there some strategies or tactics you can oppose to this monster?
I've run some tests, even "superhuman japanese pilots" don't help.

Post #: 1

Now this is weird.... - 11/15/2003 8:34:00 PM

RevRick

Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline

Just had the USS Sangamon take a couple of torpedoes off Munda - and manage to survive back to Noumea. So far, so good. Thought I'd offload her airgroup as reserves before sending her back to Pearl for her 46 sys damage repair. Lo and Behold - the next turn, here F4Fs suddenly become F4U1s. Now that ought to be a surprise the next time I wind up with a CVE covering an invasion group. Hmmm.

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.� ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to Angel)

Post #: 2

- 11/16/2003 12:51:55 AM

Gecko

Posts: 38
Joined: 9/28/2003
Status: offline

I haven't found a _direct_ tactic against F4U/P-38 yet. But currently I'm using my CV force to cruise on the high seas killing supply convois - killed 6 US CV by now and lost Junyo and two CVLs. So I can wreck his shipping as long as I stay out of SBD/TBD range of air bases. If you cannot kill F4Us by directly fighting them, make them (more or less) useless by denying the US player the precious spare parts for his planes. Kill his AP/AKs!

bye, Gecko

(in reply to Angel)

Post #: 3

RE: - 2/7/2004 5:46:24 PM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

A couple point's, One F4U's on CV's in UV is total BS it is a game bug and hopefully will be fixed at some point, the US Navy did not operationaly deploy F4U's off CV untill after the time that UV takes place in.

If your Japanese and you are fighting F4U's most likely you have already lost the war.

(in reply to Gecko)

Post #: 4

RE: RE: - 2/7/2004 8:10:56 PM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

I agree, Corsairs should not be carrier based in UV. They weren't used on CVs untill '44 I believe. Corsairs have a short range so If you deny them a base in Irau, they can't escort any bombers: not that B-17s need any escort.

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 5

RE: RE: - 2/8/2004 1:18:21 PM

Gen.Hoepner

Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline

Yes,the only way for the Inj to avoid the corsair's air power is to not allow Us player to set a air base too close to the operational zone.
In my courrent game ,playin as japan, i managed to sink 5 of the first 6 cvs(we're now in november 42).PM hasn't fallen yet,altough i've been bombin it for 5 months-_-''. At the moment the coral sea is mine but i do not have the strenght to take PM or lungaville 'cause the exp of my pilots is dropping down quickly and all his bases are heavily mined.I now in few months his's goin to get a lot of great new planes and the only thing i can do right now is to keep my guys trained and sink AP-Aks that try to resupply PM.Time is running against me and i now that i'll lost the war even if i still have 5 CVs operating...frustrating

(in reply to Drex)

Post #: 6

RE: RE: - 2/8/2004 5:30:23 PM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

"i now that i'll lost the war even if i still have 5 CVs operating...frustrating"

Yes It can be, I have been their a few times myself, even if the US player loses several of his CV's he can still win, the same is realy not true for Japan.

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)

Post #: 7

RE: RE: - 2/8/2004 6:23:55 PM

CynicAl

Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

F4U's on CV's in UV is total BS it is a game bug and hopefully will be fixed at some point, the US Navy did not operationaly deploy F4U's off CV untill after the time that UV takes place in.

I'm surprised at you, Brady - you're always so hot to make sure no possible capability is left out on the Japanese side, whether realistic or not (*cough* minisubs *cough*), I wouldn't think you'd grudge Allied players the same opportunities. Particularly since didn't is not the same as couldn't. The USN chose not to operate F4Us from CVs until 1944, but they most certainly could have done so at any time from late 1942 on. The USN did deploy at least one carrier-qualified F4U squadron (VF-17 under Blackburn) to this theater in the time period covered by the game; later in the war, both the RN and USN operated F4Us from CVEs as well as from fleet CVs.

_____________________________

Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 8

RE: RE: - 2/8/2004 6:44:20 PM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

I believe the US couldn't use the Ccorsair because the cockpit was too far back on the fusilage for the pilot to see the carrier deck when landing. It took the Brits to develop the sideways landing technique and the US later adopted it. "Chose" is correct but they had little choice unless they wanted to lose planes and pilots to operational accidents. If UV modelled this in the game then I would support it.

(in reply to CynicAl)

Post #: 9

RE: RE: - 2/8/2004 6:45:59 PM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

The Japanese made far greater use of mini subs than is commonly beleaved, as I was able to show in a series of posts on a now lost thread:(

VF-17 was I beelave taken off the CV they deployed on and replaced with Hellcats if memorie serves, once they reached SWPA before they were used operationaly, and VF-17 was deployed to a land base. The US navy could of used them off CV's but as has been pointed out they did not for what they considered good reasion, namely safty.

While it is true that I have made several posts regarding missing Japanese capabalitys, and yes even a few for the Allies, it is realy the former that is typicaly at a greater disavantage in this regard, so most of my posts are directed toward that area.

(in reply to CynicAl)

Post #: 10

RE: RE: Navy F4U - 2/8/2004 7:33:05 PM

SeaWolF K

Posts: 143
Joined: 10/1/2003
Status: offline

VF-17 depolyed to the pacific with the Bunker Hill, was transferred to the South Pacific because it would have been the only F4U in the Central Pacific 1943 and would have cause a logistical nightmare. And VF-17 returned to operate off the Bunker Hill in Nov 1943 when she was operating in the South Pacific. So why shouldn't the US player be able to use them in UV which was the only theater with the supplies to support the in 1943. The problem with the F4U was that it took training to land on a carrier, which the marines did not recieve, however the navy squadron's did.

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 11

RE: RE: Navy F4U - 2/8/2004 7:43:03 PM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

Then use them from Nov'43 on or perhaps the BH should have VF-17 as part of its air complement.I don't know what Brady posted on his other threads but the Japaneses did use seaplanes launched off I-subs in '42 off Guadalcanal. This capability is missing in UV also.

(in reply to SeaWolF K)

Post #: 12

RE: RE: Navy F4U - 2/8/2004 8:41:43 PM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

F4U's were not cleared for use off US Navy CV's untill sometime in 44, while units were trained in their use from CV's like VF-17 it was decided that useing them from was to dangerious and they were not cleared for use from US CV's as a result, also their was an issue with the landing gear being to week I bleave.

Their is no ligitamate reasion for F4U's being depoyable in UV from US CV's.

(in reply to Drex)

Post #: 13

RE: RE: Navy F4U - 2/8/2004 9:12:57 PM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

From: Americas 100,000 by Francis H. Dean

p. 515

"Sept. 25th 42- Initial carrier tests are preformed on the USS Sangamon, CVE 26, with four landings made. Problems surface imadeatly; cowlflaps actuator leaks, engine oil leaks from valve push rods, flouling the windsheild, the forward view is very poor, the aircraft bounces on landing and swings because the low tail wheel puts the flaps very clsoe to the carrier deck."

" Nov. 42 the 5th production model is modified to raise the piolets eat 8 incjes toimprove visabality, and a modified canopy is added. This modifacation is later added in production on the 689th aircraft in mid-43"

"Mar 43,Two corsars are equiped with pneumatic tail wheals on longer struts and tested...their is some improvement on carier landings, but tail wheals tend to blow out, during VF-12's training 14 piolets are killed in landing acedents, It is considered tricky to fly, VF-12 later switches to Hellcats."

"July 15 43, Navy Coursare unit VF-17 goes aboard the Bunker Hill and heads for a shakedown cruse in the Carabiean. They encounter tail hook problems; Hooks snap off and are replaced, Vought promises that they will have the new F4U-1A waiting for them apon their return to Norfolk."

"Sept 28th 43, the Bunker Hill Leaves San Diego for the South Pacific with VF-17 aboard"

"Oct 2, 43- The Bunker Hill docks at pearl Harbor; VF-17 and it's F4U-1As are off loaded with orders for esprito santo. They are replaced on the carier by VF-18 equiped with Hellcats. VF-17 has so far been the only Coursare squadron on a carier."

" Mar 44- The chief of Naval operations Training at NAS Jacksonville is preparing a letter indicating that the Coursare carrier deck landing characteristics are dangerious and the acedent rate, espichaly with young piolets, is unacceptably high...."

" Aprial-44- New Carier Trials with Coursairs modified with the new longstroke landing gear oleo shockstrut....are prounced suxcessfull after 113 landings and the Coursare is is finialy cleared for carrier operations."

So as you can see No F4U's should be available at anytime for any reasion withen the scope of UV.

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 14

RE: RE: Navy F4U - 2/8/2004 9:20:19 PM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

I checked one of my pbem games and sure en0ough, the BH has VF-17 on board. So UV does support Corsairs on CVs but only in the historical timeframe in '43. Leave the game as it is.

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 15

RE: RE: Navy F4U - 2/8/2004 9:49:51 PM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

"I checked one of my pbem games and sure en0ough, the BH has VF-17 on board. So UV does support Corsairs on CVs but only in the historical timeframe in '43. Leave the game as it is. "

Ya but hat is not Historicaly corect, they should not be deployed aboard any US CV in the scope of UV at all operationaly, not untill mid 44 should US CV's be able to use F4U's in a combat role and that is way outside of the scope of UV.

Another big problem in UV is that some units upgrade to F4U's and can be used operationaly from US CV's way Early like in early 43.

From above:

"" Aprial-44- New Carier Trials with Coursairs modified with the new longstroke landing gear oleo shockstrut....are prounced suxcessfull after 113 landings and the Coursare is is finialy cleared for carrier operations.""

The only thing The Bunker Hill should deploy with in UV is Hellcats, all she did with VF-17 is fery them to Pearl.

Again from above:

"Oct 2, 43- The Bunker Hill docks at pearl Harbor; VF-17 and it's F4U-1As are off loaded with orders for esprito santo. They are replaced on the carier by VF-18 equiped with Hellcats. VF-17 has so far been the only Coursare squadron on a carier."

< Message edited by Brady -- 2/8/2004 8:15:45 PM >

(in reply to Drex)

Post #: 16

RE: RE: Navy F4U - 2/8/2004 10:18:32 PM

bilbow

Posts: 741
Joined: 8/22/2002
From: Concord NH
Status: offline

In UV we don't have a choice on upgrades. If a carrier F4F happens to be at a land base, it will upgrade to F4Us. The only way to prevent it is to keep all carrier F4Fs on carriers, which sometimes is not possible. It is a bug- from what Mike Wood said a while back the intent is for carrier F4Fs to upgrade to Hellcats, and the Marine squadrons to Corsairs. It will be fixed at some point. In the meantime it's unrealistic to expect that if a carrier squadron does upgrade to Corsairs while at a land base, you can't then operate it from a carrier. I would consider it gamey only if we had a choice of upgrades.

Actually, I'd rather not upgrade carrier squads this way, because when the Hellcats arrive you might not have any carrier F4F squads left, and the 100 per month Hellcat pool becomes wasted. You get a short tem benefit at the expense of a long term penalty.

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 17

RE: RE: Navy F4U - 2/8/2004 10:21:55 PM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

I checked and you are historically correct. In the one pbem game that I checked it is middle of December'42 and the BH is 215 days out so that is August before it gets to Noumea, IF it is released right away. But this is one squadron on one CV: not exactly a game breaker. I'm willing to allow my opponent to use this one squdron only on a carrier. For myself, I prefer to use corsairs as land-based CAP where they particularly shine and will replace the corsairs on BH with Hellcats as you suggest. Hellcats have a longer range I believe.

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 18

RE: RE: Navy F4U - 2/8/2004 10:28:05 PM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

In a game I am playing now my opponent asked permission to use corsairs on CVs because his 4F4 squadrons had upgraded to Corsairs, I refused to let him do this because it can be a game-breaker if all allied CVs are allowed to do this. The one advantage the Japanese player has at this stage - experienced zero pilots- would soon be negated or eliminated. Only one squadron- VF-17- should be carrier based and that is pushing the history as Brady just pointed out.

(in reply to bilbow)

Post #: 19