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: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post)

 
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 >> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/28/2017 4:17:32 AM   
SheperdN7


Posts: 296
Joined: 2/23/2016
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Status: offline 		Well I would say that the IJN is a match for the USN for 2 ships classes:

DD's
CA's

Those are the only 2 ship classes which are comparable even against late war USN classes. That being said I'd almost never would put Mogami's up against Baltimore's but they sure stand a much better chance than an Agano against a Brooklyn!

_____________________________

Current Games:

WitP:AE PBEM against Greg (Late '44)
AE PBEM against Mogami (Early'44)
WITE PBEM against Boomer Sooner

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 121
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/28/2017 5:57:44 AM   
BBfanboy


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

ORIGINAL: SheperdN7

Well I would say that the IJN is a match for the USN for 2 ships classes:

DD's
CA's

Those are the only 2 ship classes which are comparable even against late war USN classes. That being said I'd almost never would put Mogami's up against Baltimore's but they sure stand a much better chance than an Agano against a Brooklyn!

I have been terribly disappointed in CAs Baltimore and Boston during my games. They just could not seem to land a hit. I gave them good skippers, but crew experience is not up to battle with the very experienced Japanese. I should have had them doing bombardments to gain experience and waited for the magic date when USN fire control bonuses kick in (whenever that is) before committing them to battle with IJN cruisers.

_____________________________

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 SheperdN7)
Post #: 122
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/28/2017 6:09:00 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
Late in the war the US delayed completing a number of CAs as a new 8 inch shell and gun was developed. The 8" gun had a relatively low rate of fire while the 6" CLs could really pump out the rounds. The 8" required a separate bag and shell which slowed things down the new gun used and 8" cartridge which increased the rate of fire.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 123
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/28/2017 6:19:36 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		The folks on the World of Warships forums, while knowledgeable in a general way, could really learn a few things here.

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 124
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/28/2017 6:57:31 AM   
SheperdN7


Posts: 296
Joined: 2/23/2016
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

The folks on the World of Warships forums, while knowledgeable in a general way, could really learn a few things here.


+1

I agree, have lots of friends that frequent those forums, if only I could get them to migrate over here

_____________________________

Current Games:

WitP:AE PBEM against Greg (Late '44)
AE PBEM against Mogami (Early'44)
WITE PBEM against Boomer Sooner

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 125
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/28/2017 9:06:13 AM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SheperdN7

Akizuki's equal greatest ships the Empire has to offer (other than MAYBE the Shimakaze's and Taiho)


Love the Empire for its CA's, DD's and floatplane carrying subs.... Not much else other than KB


But still, why such hate for my Kongo's? I love those ships





The only advantage IJN has is experience and better officers but this will go away over time. Mainly night exp and good torps (if they would hit)


Yes, CAs are good but underprotected. DDs Shima + Aki are not fuel efficient, so I would rather chose the Kagero/Yugumo as best ones..

And re. BB fanboy I believe you do not gain much exp from bombardements, perhaps to a certain limit yes. But I did not have exp gain from bombardements with IJ ships, that are obviously above this supposed limit already. The best gain you get when you sink ships probably combat ships and are hit yourself but are able to survive and repair. I noted in the lost battles the ships did not gain at all, even if they were hit and hit themselves. So it seems best case is a won battle, sink an enemy and your ship is damaged and repairs.

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 2/28/2017 12:03:13 PM >

(in reply to SheperdN7)
Post #: 126
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/28/2017 2:12:09 PM   
Hotei

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 1/30/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: SheperdN7

Akizuki's equal greatest ships the Empire has to offer (other than MAYBE the Shimakaze's and Taiho)


Love the Empire for its CA's, DD's and floatplane carrying subs.... Not much else other than KB


But still, why such hate for my Kongo's? I love those ships








Yes, CAs are good but underprotected. DDs Shima + Aki are not fuel efficient, so I would rather chose the Kagero/Yugumo as best ones..




Destoyers cant be really good at everything, some are good for AA and some for ASW.
Japan wanted to use them in surface action, at night, so they have the torpedoes for that work.
Deciding the future upgrades is vital for Japan, naturally they wont be as good as the Fletchers but that is a pointless comparison.
You are fighting a superior enemy, just do the best you can.

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 127
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/28/2017 3:29:40 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		Fletchers can be good at everything.

(in reply to Hotei)
Post #: 128
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/28/2017 3:43:42 PM   
Insano

 

Posts: 228
Joined: 7/23/2009
From: Joplin, Missouri
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Fletchers can be good at everything.


- except sinking

Banzai!

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 129
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/28/2017 3:45:14 PM   
Hotei

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 1/30/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Fletchers can be good at everything.



It is better that the Japanese classify them as light cruisers.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 130
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/28/2017 4:45:20 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Insano


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Fletchers can be good at everything.


- except sinking

Banzai!


Idunno, they're pretty good at that, too.

(in reply to Insano)
Post #: 131
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/28/2017 4:48:36 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline 		Well my plan is still to bring surface fleets with all the "not so good" ships to battle. But conditions are not favourable (over 90% moon), maybe our subs, mines etc. will hit another cruiser from them, to get a bit better favourable odds. Guess need to finally try to protect Tassa,Lunga from the bombardements again. Wrote a small AAR update...In 43 the conditions for ours will be even worse, right?

Most my CVs also repaired, upgraded...but I do not see how to use them in this area with hundreds of enemy fighters. Most CV aircrews were trained up again and do not want to lose 40-50% again.

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 2/28/2017 4:49:35 PM >

(in reply to Hotei)
Post #: 132
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 3/1/2017 3:38:10 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Fletchers can be good at everything.


Gearings were even better, but they didn't come along until the end of the war. The Gearings incorporated lessons learned with the Fletchers. They made the hull a little bit wider to allow three dual gun turrets instead of 5X single mounts and they made the ship longer to increase the fuel tank size. By reducing the number of turrets, they lowered topside weight and increased the ship's punch. The Fletcher was never really designed for Pacific use. It was always considered too short legged compared to what the USN really wanted. They were going to design a longer hull variant for the Pacific, but never got around to putting it into production until they did the bigger redesign for the Gearing.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 133
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 3/1/2017 4:55:50 AM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline 		I wonder why in the game the Gearings have the same endurance as the Fletchers?

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 134
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 3/1/2017 7:49:48 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

I wonder why in the game the Gearings have the same endurance as the Fletchers?



From my reading about US destroyer designs, the Sumner got the dual gun turrets and the Gearing had more fuel. According to Wikipedia, the Fletch had a range of 5500 nmi, the Sumner 6000 nmi, and the Gearing 4500 nmi. I think somebody got it wrong, the Wikipedia article mentions the Gearings had more fuel. The range for the Gearings are at 20 knots, while the other two are at 15 knots.

I'll have to look at the book I read. It's been a while since I read it.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 135
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 3/1/2017 12:07:57 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline 		If someone has some more tips how I can protect Guadalcanal from bombardements by Allied fleets bring it up (mines and subs are aleady there), night bombing not allowed. Anti shipping air will not hit, as the ships are gone at daylight.

Also just to clear that up, the MOONLIGHT needs to be as low as possible to favour the Japanese, correct? Sorry for dumb questions, but I only played the AI before and did not even care about this issue - the AI would send its ships eventually in range of my air and better fleets anyway....eg. 50% moonlight or lower would be ok, but I have over 80% at the moment, so better not risk anything

Thanks

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 3/1/2017 12:24:38 PM >

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 136
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 3/1/2017 1:06:08 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline 		Bill, I saw the Wiki range for the Gearing is for 4500nmi, but that was at 20 knots and the other ranges are at 15 knots.

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 137
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 3/1/2017 1:11:04 PM   
Barb


Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline 		According to the http://destroyerhistory.org the endurance of the classes at 15 kts was:
Fletcher: 4800nm
Sumner: 4800nm
Gearing: 5800nm

_____________________________


(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 138
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 3/1/2017 1:16:20 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline 		That would sound about right Barb.

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 139
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 3/1/2017 1:34:15 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline 		Hello. Barb is real close. There is probably some rounding or averaging in the internet numbers. According to USN, with everything measured the same way:

DD 445, Fletcher Class
Fuel Oil Capacity: 142,655 gal, 3,397 bbl, 515 tons
Mean Displacement: 2850 tons
Radius at Mean Displacement:
4,490 nm @ 15 knots – 12.5 days steady state
3,480 nm @ 20 knots – 7.2 days steady state
1,020 nm @ 33 knots – 1.3 days steady state

DD 692, Sumner Class
Fuel Oil Capacity: 139,608 gal, 3,324 bbl, 504 tons
Mean Displacement: 3100 tons
Radius at Mean Displacement:
4,220 nm @ 15 knots – 11.8 days steady state
3,240 nm @ 20 knots – 6.8 days steady state
1,090 nm @ 31 knots – 1.5 days steady state

DD 710, Gearing Class
Fuel Oil Capacity: 207,196 gal, 4,933 bbl, 748 tons
Mean Displacement: 3300 tons
Radius at Mean Displacement:
5,690 nm @ 15 knots – 15.9 days steady state
4,380 nm @ 20 knots – 9.1 days steady state
1,600 nm @ 31 knots – 2.2 days steady state


< Message edited by US87891 -- 3/1/2017 1:37:52 PM >

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 140
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 3/1/2017 4:11:14 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Fletchers can be good at everything.


Gearings were even better, but they didn't come along until the end of the war. The Gearings incorporated lessons learned with the Fletchers. They made the hull a little bit wider to allow three dual gun turrets instead of 5X single mounts and they made the ship longer to increase the fuel tank size. By reducing the number of turrets, they lowered topside weight and increased the ship's punch. The Fletcher was never really designed for Pacific use. It was always considered too short legged compared to what the USN really wanted. They were going to design a longer hull variant for the Pacific, but never got around to putting it into production until they did the bigger redesign for the Gearing.

Bill


Well, except that in game the Gearings have much less armor (Belt/Deck 5/5 instead of 18/12), and the Sumners don't have any at all. This is a huge part of why Fletchers are so good - they can take on IJN DDs and plenty of the hits will bounce off of armor.

Their earlier arrival also tends to mean that their crews are more experienced than the Gearings by the time the Gearings arrive, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the ships themselves.

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 141
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 3/1/2017 5:50:17 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline 		Don't know if it was a post-war feature or not, but the Gearing class DDs I visited had the 3"50 dual guns instead of 40mm. These AA guns had longer range and a good rate of fire. Under director control they had a good chance of shooting down fast moving targets.

_____________________________

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 Lokasenna)
Post #: 142
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 3/1/2017 10:09:59 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

If someone has some more tips how I can protect Guadalcanal from bombardements by Allied fleets bring it up (mines and subs are aleady there), night bombing not allowed. Anti shipping air will not hit, as the ships are gone at daylight.

Also just to clear that up, the MOONLIGHT needs to be as low as possible to favour the Japanese, correct? Sorry for dumb questions, but I only played the AI before and did not even care about this issue - the AI would send its ships eventually in range of my air and better fleets anyway....eg. 50% moonlight or lower would be ok, but I have over 80% at the moment, so better not risk anything

Thanks


Don't know what to say. I believe you said your game is in early '42 and I just can't see how you got in this condition so early on to tell you the truth. I know mines won't do much against bombardment missions and neither will mini-subs, besides you don't have too many of those at this point.

CD guns would be best, but Japan has few and most if not all are static at this point. I would just flood the approaches with subs if he is being so regular. Eventually you should damage some of his ships. Hopefully enough for him to give up. Heck I just had an RO sub put two fish into Warspite (sorry warspite1) in my game. She won't sink, but I'll bet its back to the yards for her.

One other thing, I'd say based on your description of what your opponent has done and the time of the game, he's put all his 'eggs in one basket', so to speak. I can't see that he would have many forces to oppose you elsewhere. maybe you could find an area that he considers sensitive and apply pressure there in the hopes of diverting some of his effort.

I can tell you in my game I've got almost 250 LB A/C in the Rabaul/Solomons/New Guinea area and there are airfields for them to operate from as far down as Munda and Milne Bay. I also haven't denuded other areas of operations. I just put a few more forces in the Philippines and I got done there in mid-March. I'm currently in early April '42. Now I know I'm playing the AI, but in a PBEM I would expect the Southeast area of operations to be a potential hot spot. Therefore I plan to have forces there accordingly. If my opponent were to apply pressure elsewhere hopefully my preps in those areas should suffice to deter and defeat such early efforts. IOW you can't neglect other areas of the Empire.

Beyond this I really don't know what to say. Maybe some other with more experience/insight may chime in to give you their pearls of wisdom.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 143
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 3/1/2017 11:09:08 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		How to kill Allied bombardment TFs in 1942, you ask?

KB, I say. Torpedo planes make CAs and BBs go glug-glug.

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 144
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 3/2/2017 5:43:35 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Well, except that in game the Gearings have much less armor (Belt/Deck 5/5 instead of 18/12), and the Sumners don't have any at all. This is a huge part of why Fletchers are so good - they can take on IJN DDs and plenty of the hits will bounce off of armor.

Their earlier arrival also tends to mean that their crews are more experienced than the Gearings by the time the Gearings arrive, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the ships themselves.


I don't know why the Gearings have much less armor in the WW II time frame. After the war a lot of the topside steel was replaced with aluminum which dramatically reduced topside weight. I knew someone who served on the Gearing in Vietnam and they did close in bombardment. He said it was terrifying because the aluminum would spall when hit with just rifle rounds making it more dangerous to be inside something topside than out in the open.

When built during the war I thought the early Gearings had similar armoring as the Fletchers. That's probably something to look at for scenario updates.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 145
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 3/14/2017 8:21:10 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline 		Some of the Allies paid for the evil actions. I used 2-3 hints from here and waited this time for better low moonlight...so thanks. Ofc it would be better had still had Yamato with the now better knowledge

But BB Fuso just proved that I listed her in the "good ships" this time made up for it, a Kongo tho was not so good :) Will post the combat reports later in the AAR..the "recon" or advance guard with CLs this time worked too. But Allies at disadvantage they were landing at Lunga so some ships probably low on ammo from landing support fire.

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 146
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
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

1.313