Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Naval losses: 5 months after PH

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Naval losses: 5 months after PH Page: <<   < prev  15 16 [17] 18 19   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Naval losses: 5 months after PH - 3/8/2015 3:03:44 AM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

Neat utility - what is it?

Am I reading this right - you've sunk a total of 22 DDs or 22 in May? Either way, that's a lot of DDs that will have long term impact!


I have sunk a total of 22 destroyer type ships in the entire war... it would be so good to sink 22 destroyers in one month , but no that is the total.

Moreover, I assume "destroyer" as a category, which includes other type of ships like APDs, TBs.
And of course, these includes a fog of war, so likely a bit overstated

The full list:
CL Abukuma ---> this one probably didn't sink, as it got only one torpedo hit.
CL Kiso
CL Tama
DD Akigumo
DD Ariake
DD Fubuki
DD Hatsuharu
DD Hatsuyuki
DD Kuroshio
DD Mutsuki
DD Nokaze
DD Oyashio
DD Shinonome
DD Shirakumo
DD Shirayuki
DD Suzukaze
DD Ushio
DD Usugumo
DD Yomogi
DD Yugumo
DMS W-11
DMS W-5
E Ishigaki
E Saga
TB Chidori

(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 481
RE: Naval losses: 5 months after PH - 3/8/2015 3:08:43 AM   
IdahoNYer


Posts: 2616
Joined: 9/6/2009
From: NYer living in Boise, ID
Status: offline 		still, that's an impressive haul.

Whats the utility??

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 482
RE: Naval losses: 5 months after PH - 3/8/2015 3:14:01 AM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		I did it in Excel; with pivot tables
data is coming from the tracker


Air losses




Victory points ratio= Japan 2.712:1

I am starting to get worried about a possible auto-victory in 1943...



Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 3/8/2015 4:43:32 AM >

(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 483
May 9th: Madras - 3/8/2015 4:13:50 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		From some time now, I had been suspecting he is planning an offensive on Madras. Today I got some confirmation of that:




The imperial guards were in Colombo last time I saw them, and 10/Imperial guards mean it is embarked.



Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 3/8/2015 5:17:20 PM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 484
RE: May 9th: Madras - 3/8/2015 4:28:59 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		I have the RN close to Addu, the original plan was to refuel there and attempt to sneak much southernly; certainly closer to P Blair than Colombo, as he has quite a lot of bombers in the later.

But, the potential for hitting the Imperial guards embarked is way too tempting, I will send carriers and cruisers south of Colombo, hopefully they will sink the transports

I also have nearby, 2 "R" class Battleships, supported by Hermes, these however are too slow, and still up north. I doubt they will be part of this operation; maybe to cover the withdrawal




Wish me luck on the next 2 or 3 turns

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 3/8/2015 5:33:13 PM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 485
RE: Naval losses: 5 months after PH - 3/8/2015 5:42:53 PM   
Mike McCreery


Posts: 4232
Joined: 6/29/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury


I did it in Excel; with pivot tables
data is coming from the tracker


Air losses




Victory points ratio= Japan 2.712:1

I am starting to get worried about a possible auto-victory in 1943...




Auto victory in 1943 requires 4-1.

_____________________________


(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 486
RE: Naval losses: 5 months after PH - 3/8/2015 5:59:03 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		Yes I know, but he is beating me if he can keep the punishment at this same rate... he can easily get the 4-to-1
At least in China he will, so I need to start getting some "successes" in the other theatres, especially India where I don't need the navy yet.

If he goes heavy on Madras, I think I have an opportunity to attack everywhere else; but first I need to build a credible defense there; this time no more Burmese/ Malayan/ Indian punny troops; only good British, Australian or USA LCUs. Most colonial divisions will remain at Bombay, so to keep them as reserve in case everything fails.

My plan is to keep many LCUs on strategic mode as to allow for quick redeployment, but I have a question related:
what is the impact of keeping a LCU in strategic mode? of course I know it means they will not perform well under attack, but is there any limitation in terms of fatigue, disruption?
any difference in terms of training potential between "combat" vs. "strategic" ?


< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 3/8/2015 7:06:26 PM >

(in reply to Mike McCreery)
Post #: 487
RE: Naval losses: 5 months after PH - 3/9/2015 6:40:04 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline 		I have had troops in strategic mode move to a larger (9+ total development) base to cure malaria effects (Disruption 12, Fatigue 30) and without changing mode they cured in about three turns.

Never left any in Strat Mode long enough to see if experience continues to grow, as it does in combat mode.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 488
RE: Naval losses: 5 months after PH - 3/9/2015 1:16:21 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		Thanks!
at the end I decided to put all India troops on strategic mode, which will give me flexibilty to define what and how to defend.

I am also having some misgivings about defending Madras. It doesn't mean that I am thinking about abandoning it, but maybe not putting all the eggs into this basket.

The issue with Madras, is of course, the fact it is in the shore, and very close to a level 8 port (Colombo). thus I can expect non stop bombardment, and I already got a taste on the consequences of high disruption due to naval bombardment while fighting on Port Moresby.

On the positive side, Madras is a good place for air fighting, as I am building Hyderabad and significant #s of B-17s are in transit to Cape Town. So in around 2 weeks or so, I will have around 90 B-17s in Bombay and a strong component of fighters and 2 engine bombers in Hyderabad while he has only one important base in Trincomalee, relatively far away. A good scenario for defending in the air.

I also wihdrew most squadrons close to withdrawal date (next 30 days); all those that give PP. This for 2 reasons: first, I am getting close to the 1940 points needed to buy a USA division, desperately needed in India. the second is to increase my aircraft pool numbers; which will come handy by the time the fighting starts

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 3/9/2015 2:23:55 PM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 489
RE: Naval losses: 5 months after PH - 3/9/2015 6:53:24 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline 		If you want to lessen the effects of bombardment, build Madras forts as a priority. Once you get level4 and higher the protection from bombardment is markedly better.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 490
RE: Naval losses: 5 months after PH - 3/9/2015 7:55:29 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		Good to know! Madras fort is at level 4.33 and building
moreover, AA is so strong that his bombing raids are always taking out at least a couple bombers, plus many more damaged.

so far my airbase/ port damage is zero, either my teams are repairing damage during the turn or simply AA is killing the aiming accuracy. Forts keep building

I have these 5 AA LCUs:
Heavy:
- 2/2nd Hvy AA
- 1st RM Heavy AA
- 6th Hvy AA
- 77th Hvy AA
each with 24 24 3.7" MK2 AA guns
Light:
- 48th Light AA with 36 40mm Bofors M1

He had damaged industry, which I am not planning to repair:
Heavy: (88) 52
Light: (13) 87

And as mentioned before, I moved out all squadrons as the bombing was too intense. That said, I plan to re-base fighters from time to time as I can withdraw them by rail if things get too hot.


< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 3/9/2015 8:57:09 PM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 491
RE: Naval losses: 5 months after PH - 3/9/2015 8:01:31 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		Today I got this email from Prester John:

"so where are those allied carriers?"

did he see my RN carriers???

I have nothing on the turn replay that hints me they were spotted. detection level is still zero...
maybe a simple coincidence... but you know in war there are no coincidences

Still too late to withdraw, they will keep moving east, trying to remain as far as possible from Trincomalee patrol range




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 3/9/2015 9:02:40 PM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 492
May 11th: submarine show - 3/11/2015 2:58:30 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		Last turn there was a lot of submarine activity, key highlight is that finally a CV was hit !!!

The victim was CV Junyo, near the Japanese home islands. As I didn't see any escort, and I know this carrier gets commissioned in May 1942, it is safe to bet it was a recent arrival.

I would guess it will need at least some months of yard time. I doubt it is at risk as it as torpedoes very close to Osaka/ Kyoto, but still good to get it offline for some months




Submarine strikes:

Allies:
Drum torpedoed CV Junyo near Wakayama, one hit, no visible fires or damage. It should survive
Hallibut attacked TK Tonan Maru #3, near Naha, but "hit no explosion"
Silversides attacked xAK Malta Maru near Puerto Princesa, a miss
S-18 torpedoed TK Okigawa Maru near Shikuka, one hit, I give it 50-50 chances

Japanese:
RO-60 sunk xAKL Nicarata in Baker island
I-8 sunk CM Bungaree near Sydney
I-160 torpedoed PC Haida at Amchitka island. Although Haida survived, it won't see action for many months


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 3/11/2015 4:10:30 PM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 493
May 11th: Ceylon - 3/11/2015 3:28:33 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		Going back to my carrier foray in the Indian Ocean; looks like Prester John carrier comment was a pure coincidence

- I sent some Catalinas to take a look and I didn't find any worthy target
- Looks like the Imperial guards are not using "juicy transports" to move out of Ceylon, more likely destroyers on fast transport.
- For some reason, my TFs ended too far south of where I expected to see them.
- TF fuel level, although not yet an issue, was inadequate for continuous operation

For all these reasons, I decided to send both TFs to refuel at Diego Garcia. They will go back of course, but the "fast transport" target is too maneuverable for my torpedo bombers, so not worth the risk to send the carriers so close to his LBAs





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 3/11/2015 4:28:46 PM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 494
RE: May 11th: China - 3/11/2015 6:32:13 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		Last but not least, operation Chinese fury!!

I launched 4 shock attacks in the following sieged bases: Chengchow, Loyang, Changsha, Kienko
Results were good: 3 victories, 1 defeat, with heavy Japanese losses:




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Chengchow (88,44)

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 25342 troops, 162 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 759

Defending force 10260 troops, 67 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 342

Allied adjusted assault: 505

Japanese adjusted defense: 86

Allied assault odds: 5 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: leaders(-), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
4428 casualties reported
Squads: 93 destroyed, 119 disabled
Non Combat: 64 destroyed, 25 disabled
Engineers: 5 destroyed, 10 disabled
Guns lost 11 (3 destroyed, 8 disabled)
Units retreated 1

Allied ground losses:
2667 casualties reported
Squads: 14 destroyed, 302 disabled
Non Combat: 4 destroyed, 51 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 27 disabled

Defeated Japanese Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
40th Chinese Corps
29th Chinese Corps
5th New Chinese Corps
7th Chinese Corps
98th Chinese Corps
3rd Construction Regiment
69th Chinese Corps
8th New Chinese Corps
84th Chinese Corps
15th Chinese Corps
7th Construction Regiment
31st Group Army
1st War Area
24th Group Army
39th Group Army
3rd Group Army
10th Chinese Base Force

Defending units:
59th Division


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Loyang (87,43)

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 57923 troops, 249 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1774

Defending force 11102 troops, 72 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 358

Allied adjusted assault: 713

Japanese adjusted defense: 305

Allied assault odds: 2 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: leaders(+)
Attacker: shock(+), supply(-)

Japanese ground losses:
4690 casualties reported
Squads: 106 destroyed, 137 disabled
Non Combat: 85 destroyed, 36 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 3 disabled
Guns lost 31 (7 destroyed, 24 disabled)
Units retreated 1

Allied ground losses:
1193 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 92 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 13 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 7 disabled

Defeated Japanese Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
9th Chinese Corps
38th Chinese Corps
80th Chinese Corps
27th Chinese Corps
93rd Chinese Corps
96th Chinese Corps
2nd Chinese Cavalry Corps
Jingcha War Area
15th Group Army
14th Group Army
4th Group Army
36th Group Army
4th Chinese Base Force

Defending units:
69th Division


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Changsha (82,52)

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 80602 troops, 409 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 2306

Defending force 21217 troops, 166 guns, 38 vehicles, Assault Value = 586

Allied adjusted assault: 3276

Japanese adjusted defense: 541

Allied assault odds: 6 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), op mode(-), preparation(-), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
7615 casualties reported
Squads: 182 destroyed, 192 disabled
Non Combat: 132 destroyed, 89 disabled
Engineers: 6 destroyed, 13 disabled
Guns lost 52 (20 destroyed, 32 disabled)
Vehicles lost 11 (6 destroyed, 5 disabled)
Units retreated 2

Allied ground losses:
6212 casualties reported
Squads: 144 destroyed, 598 disabled
Non Combat: 5 destroyed, 72 disabled
Engineers: 7 destroyed, 33 disabled
Guns lost 31 (2 destroyed, 29 disabled)

Defeated Japanese Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
37th Chinese Corps
9th Prov Chinese Corps
74th Chinese Corps
10th Chinese Corps
78th Chinese Corps
99th Chinese Corps
58th Chinese Corps
26th Chinese Corps
20th Chinese Corps
72nd Chinese Corps
5th Construction Regiment
9th War Area
27th Group Army
30th Group Army
29th Group Army
19th Group Army
17th Chinese Base Force

Defending units:
15th Division
12th Ind.Mixed Brigade


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Kienko (78,41)

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 63232 troops, 107 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 2307

Defending force 14727 troops, 121 guns, 113 vehicles, Assault Value = 480

Allied adjusted assault: 714

Japanese adjusted defense: 995

Allied assault odds: 1 to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(+), fatigue(-), supply(-)
Attacker: shock(+), supply(-)

Japanese ground losses:
519 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 37 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 26 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled

Allied ground losses:
1681 casualties reported
Squads: 50 destroyed, 269 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 16 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Guns lost 12 (2 destroyed, 10 disabled)

Assaulting units:
41st Chinese Corps
95th Chinese Corps
92nd Chinese Corps
55th Chinese Corps
77th Chinese Corps
12th Chinese Corps
31st Chinese Corps
30th Chinese Corps
51st Chinese Corps
1st Chinese Cavalry Corps
2nd Group Army

Defending units:
3rd Tank Regiment
26th Division


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 3/11/2015 7:51:40 PM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 495
RE: May 11th: China - 3/12/2015 6:51:17 PM   
IdahoNYer


Posts: 2616
Joined: 9/6/2009
From: NYer living in Boise, ID
Status: offline 		successful on the ground in China. I'm envious!

Nice going!

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 496
no turns since Wednesday - 3/14/2015 8:03:05 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		My opponent had been busy, so no turns since Wednesday, I am feeling withdrawal syndrome

while I keep waiting for the turn; this is the general situation:




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 3/14/2015 9:03:47 PM >

(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 497
RE: no turns since Wednesday - 3/14/2015 10:17:54 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline 		You have enough PP to buy a Division. Any plans?

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 498
RE: no turns since Wednesday - 3/14/2015 10:53:55 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

You have enough PP to buy a Division. Any plans?


Not yet!! but I am counting the days... I have a division waiting in the East coast; the price is 1,924 PP
so another week and they are ready to go

It is the 27th USA division. They will leave in fast transports as soon as I can buy them. I need them in Madras or Hyderabad.
I have them at 100% prep. for Calcutta.. which of course is outside of my short term objectives. Problem is I can't change it as it will stop gaining experience.

Another division, the 41st USA will wait another month or so for its trip to India. This one is prep. for Perth, but again, I can't change until they become experienced




< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 3/14/2015 11:54:13 PM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 499
RE: no turns since Wednesday - 3/15/2015 12:12:24 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline 		Yeah - that is a weak point of the game IMO, that all the planning done is flushed down the toilet the moment you start on a different plan.
Surely the plans could be put on the shelf and taken up later by the same unit? Just a matter of banking the plan % data and unit name and setting a check routine to see if there is a shelved plan whenever the unit changes plans again.
It would be fair to deduct a 10-20% penalty from the plan on the shelf to account for forgetting details and changing circumstances like tide and moon calculations for invasions.

I don't recall spending that much for 27th ID, but then,I set the units I plan to buy to "No Replacements/No Upgrade" so that they will be cheaper to buy. The devices they need to fill out are usually stockpiled in the pool (through lack of demand from the No Reinforcements setting) so they fill out quickly when I buy them and allow them to fill out.


_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 500
RE: no turns since Wednesday - 3/15/2015 1:19:02 AM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		Well at least this affects both Japan and Allies in the same way.

The 27th is at 54 experience, while the 41st is at 55. Once they hit the magic 60 number (USA maximum) they will change objectives.

EDIT: By the time I figured out the "no replacements" it was too late, they were already at maximum

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 3/15/2015 2:20:06 AM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 501
Naval Patrols - 3/16/2015 3:30:42 AM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		This is my search/ ASW patrols:

Legend:
Each red circle represents around 8 to 12 Catalinas, doing Naval Search; although in the West Coast and Pearl Harbor I have some doing ASW.
Each white circle represents around 12 Catalinas doing training
White rectangles are the special case of the New Zealand's "S.19 Singapore" squadrons, I have 3 planes left and no reinforcements. Since they never fly with SR-5, I decided to use them for training
Soviets excluded



Comments:
Obviously there is little coverage in the Indian Ocean
Same goes for the west coast, but I will get more patrol squadrons soon. Also, he is not pushing hard with his long range submarines
Canada is highly covered for the simple reason that they are restricted units; once I got them trained, nothing else to do
Christmas island might be overkill... but I have it covered in case of merchant raiders
New Zealand is naked . I think I will put some bombers to search, just in case

Bases:
Alliford bay: 12 Stranraer --> ASW
Bella Bella: 4 Stranraer --> Search
Victoria: 12 Stranraer --> Search
Prince Ruppert: 12 Stranraer --> Training, 12 Bolingbroke --> ASW
Alameda: 12 Catalinas --> Training
Geraldton: Dutch leftovers: 8 Catalinas and 9 Dorniers --> Search
Wyndham: 12 Catalinas --> Seach
Cooktown: 8 Catalinas --> Search
Cairns: 6 Catalinas + 12 Hudsons --> Search
Noumea: 12 Catalinas --> Search
Koumac: 12 Catalinas --> Search
Ndeni: 12 Catalinas --> Search
Vaitupu: 12 Catalinas --> Search
Suva: 12 Catalinas --> Search
Baker is: 12 Catalinas --> Search
Christmas is: 12 Catalinas --> Search
Midway is: 12 Catalinas --> Search
Johnson is: 12 Catalinas --> Search
Pearl Harbor: 12 Catalinas --> Search, 12 Catalinas --> ASW, 24 Catalinas --> Training
Amchitka is: 12 Catalinas --> Search
Cochin: 12 Catalinas --> Search

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 3/16/2015 4:42:33 AM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 502
RE: Naval Patrols - 3/16/2015 5:34:28 AM   
IdahoNYer


Posts: 2616
Joined: 9/6/2009
From: NYer living in Boise, ID
Status: offline 		Using 24 CATs for training seems to be a waste of a valuable airframe. Why not use floatplanes for training and get the CATs to NZ?

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 503
RE: Naval Patrols - 3/16/2015 6:19:02 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		I do similar things when the available pilots would just be wasting the airframes anyway (due to not being adequately trained). At that date in the game he is probably also using float planes to train pilots. He seems to have good coverage (although I acknowledge that you can never have enough!).

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 504
RE: Naval Patrols - 3/16/2015 12:48:54 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		Two reasons for using Catalinas for training:
- As Witpqs mentioned, the starting pool of trained pilots was poor, thus no point of wasting airframes until they were properly trained
- Catalinas can train "torpedo attack" skill while FPs can't. I don't know if I might be overshooting here, but early on the war, I thought that using only the Devastator squadrons for torpedo training was not enough.

- I am using all float plane squadrons for training, but they are also training "sweep", "naval bombing" in addition to ASW and naval search.
- All shipborne float planes are now adequately trained in search; most are now using the iddle times to train in ASW.

I think, by now, I can move another 24 Cats to do naval search; maybe one squadron to Brisbane and another to India? In my game New Zealand had been a very secondary theatre; my opponent's IJN is not active in the SW pacific, this of course excluding the seldom submarine attack and one failed commerce raiding attempt. But the Hawaii-Fiji-Australia area is free of Japanese, sor far. Thus my convoys had been moving unopossed on the natural sea lanes covered by "red dots". Following a southerly approach had not been necessary yet.

New Zealand convoys had been few and less relevant, mostly carrying supplies, few carrying fuel, but no troops or airplanes.

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 3/16/2015 3:21:28 PM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 505
RE: Naval Patrols - 3/16/2015 1:47:10 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline 		I strongly agree with training the Cat pilots, especially in torpedo.

Used sparingly they can be a huge surprise to the IJN when it thinks it is out of range of Allied anti-shipping strikes.


_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 506
RE: Naval Patrols - 3/16/2015 2:40:32 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Two reasons for using Catalinas for training:
- As Witpqs mentioned, the starting pool of trained pilots was poor, thus no point of wasting airframes until they were properly trained
- - Catalinas can train "torpedo attack" skill while FPs can't. I don't know if I might be overshooting here, but early on the war, I thought that using only the Devastator squadrons for torpedo training was not enough.



Not sure that is true - doesn't the Canadian Shark FP carry a torpedo? Not much use in ops because of its poor range, but it could train NavT.

< Message edited by BBfanboy -- 3/16/2015 3:41:34 PM >

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 507
RE: Naval Patrols - 3/16/2015 3:11:25 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		Yes I was talking about the normal FPs, meaning those used by main powers.

Canada's FPs can train torpedo, but I don't have any use for Canadian torpedo bombing planes, as the IJN is out of range from anything other than submarines; thus the strong focus on ASW and search.

Are Canadian squadron fully restricted? if not I would like to see if it makes sense to buy some; as mentioned before, Canada waters are the most heavily patrolled for the only reason there is nothing else I can do with the Canadian squadrons.

By the way, it is funny how unbalanced are the Allied forces: In my pools I have many dozens of Wirraways, Hudsons, Buffalos, Banshees, ancient dive bombers, even Catalinas, still producing, producing until recently or in the wrong national pool. This while the squadrons that can take the planes are scraping the barrel for need of aircraft. A good example is NZealand's patrols; I have 3 S.19 Singapores left, while the Australians have more than 30 Catalinas; but only 2 squadrons, already filled up, capable of taking them!




(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 508
RE: Naval Patrols - 3/16/2015 6:40:33 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		I had forgotten about what Jorge mention re torpedo training because my current 1x1 is in mid-44 when I have groups available to train torpedo pilots. Yes - early on I used one or two groups of Cats to train pilots for carrier torpedo bomber duty.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 509
RE: Naval Patrols - 3/16/2015 8:12:13 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline 		I think a few of the Canadian Patrol squadrons can be bought out and eventually upgrade to Cats. That could make the torpedo training useful but it is much later in the game so I tended to use the Sharks to train low naval and ASW.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 510
Page:   <<   < prev  15 16 [17] 18 19   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Naval losses: 5 months after PH Page: <<   < prev  15 16 [17] 18 19   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.922