RE: May 1944

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: May 1944

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: May 1944

Page: << < prev 118 119 [120] 121 122 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: May 1944 - 3/17/2017 7:33:40 PM

MechFO

Posts: 669
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

What a load of horse caca...

In June & July 1944 the Allies successfully use 4EB to inflict similar casualties on large concentrations of dug in German troops. Lancaster's, Liberators and B-17 bombardments were regularly used before attacks to do exactly what Dan is doing. There is historical precedent for this. On July 26th 1944, the 8th airforce used 4EB to kill 1,000 German troops. The Germans had no fighter cover and little AAA to speak of and the results were devastating. You need fighters, you need AAA. Without them, you are seeing accurate, historical results.

Even in the one case where it arguably worked, it took

1500 4EB
300 2EB

No more ludicrous than netties having a 60%-65% hit rate with torpedoes......

You want the 4Es nerfed then in all fairness you HAVE to nerf the netties as well.c
500 FB

all flying at very short range, so with heavy bomb loads, to achieve the effect.

A few dozen or even a hundred 4EB achieving something similar is ludicrous.

This kind of support stopped because the effect was dismal compared to the massive resources invested.

It's not about nerfing anything, merely to correct assertions that ludicrous results due to game engine logic has anything to do with reality. This can be extended to all wargames since arguably non get it "right".

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 3571

RE: May 1944 - 3/17/2017 10:33:07 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

full stop. the complaint was that 4EB were not operationally used to bomb ground troops. John said he was fine with 2EB, but 4 EB should not be allowed. I called BS. 4EB can, and were, and should be, allowed to bomb troops. There track record is short...but it certainly happened to great effect.

< Message edited by JohnDillworth -- 3/17/2017 10:35:53 PM >

_____________________________

Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly

(in reply to MechFO)

Post #: 3572

RE: May 1944 - 3/17/2017 10:45:01 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

What a load of horse caca...

In June & July 1944 the Allies successfully use 4EB to inflict similar casualties on large concentrations of dug in German troops. Lancaster's, Liberators and B-17 bombardments were regularly used before attacks to do exactly what Dan is doing. There is historical precedent for this. On July 26th 1944, the 8th airforce used 4EB to kill 1,000 German troops. The Germans had no fighter cover and little AAA to speak of and the results were devastating. You need fighters, you need AAA. Without them, you are seeing accurate, historical results.

Even in the one case where it arguably worked, it took

1500 4EB
300 2EB
500 FB

all flying at very short range, so with heavy bomb loads, to achieve the effect.

A few dozen or even a hundred 4EB achieving something similar is ludicrous.

This kind of support stopped because the effect was dismal compared to the massive resources invested.

No more ludicrous than netties having a 60%-65% hit rate with torpedoes......

You want the 4Es nerfed then in all fairness you HAVE to nerf the netties as well.c

I wouldn't have an issue with that at all! It is a two way street after all...

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 3573

RE: May 1944 - 3/17/2017 10:56:23 PM

Aurorus

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

full stop. the complaint was that 4EB were not operationally used to bomb ground troops. John said he was fine with 2EB, but 4 EB should not be allowed. I called BS. 4EB can, and were, and should be, allowed to bomb troops. There track record is short...but it certainly happened to great effect.

Allied generals were concerned with the inaccuracy of the 4 engine bombers as close support bombers, not the effectiveness of 4 EBs on ground troops. Everyone acknowledged that they were very effective against ground troops.

That 4 EB were not used frequently against ground troops in WWII has more to do with allied strategic decisions than the aircraft capabiities. The allies chose to use them against airbases, railheads, and industry. There is no reason that an allied player in WiTP should be bound by this strategic decision, just as the Japanese player should not be forced to send 4 of his carriers half way across the Pacific blind in support of an invasion of an insignificant atoll.

In my opinion, the game engine handles all aspects of the airwar very well. That is just my opinion. If I did not think so, I would not enjoy the game.

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 3574

RE: May 1944 - 3/17/2017 11:41:08 PM

MechFO

Posts: 669
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

full stop. the complaint was that 4EB were not operationally used to bomb ground troops. John said he was fine with 2EB, but 4 EB should not be allowed. I called BS. 4EB can, and were, and should be, allowed to bomb troops. There track record is short...but it certainly happened to great effect.

Calling a

1 casualty per 1.5 4EB sortie
1 casualty per 4.5 ton bombs (includes ordnance from FB/2EB)

ratio (assuming generously that the other 800 aircraft in Cobra were twiddling thumbs) vs a concentrated, very well reconned enemy force in open terrain that was about as easy to pinpoint by air navigation as it gets "great effect" brings new meaning to that word.

Minisubs were used operationally as well. They did not sink half the Pacific Fleet. It is trivial to give them game values that allow them to do so and there might even be good gameplay reasons, but it would bear no relation to the real world.

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 3575

RE: May 1944 - 3/18/2017 12:55:05 AM

Bif1961

Posts: 2014
Joined: 6/26/2008
From: Phenix City, Alabama
Status: offline

4E bombers were used very frequently in NG against ground troops the problem was ground troops were very hard to see in the jungle so they used area bombing and hop bombers so 2E bombers were far more frequently used in the Pacific. To say that 4E bombers can not bomb troops is to say Betties can't as well since they were naval bombers. It is not true and short of the game engine fluke, it should be allowed.

(in reply to MechFO)

Post #: 3576

RE: May 1944 - 3/18/2017 3:43:02 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

full stop. the complaint was that 4EB were not operationally used to bomb ground troops. John said he was fine with 2EB, but 4 EB should not be allowed. I called BS. 4EB can, and were, and should be, allowed to bomb troops. There track record is short...but it certainly happened to great effect.

Allied generals were concerned with the inaccuracy of the 4 engine bombers as close support bombers, not the effectiveness of 4 EBs on ground troops. Everyone acknowledged that they were very effective against ground troops.

That 4 EB were not used frequently against ground troops in WWII has more to do with allied strategic decisions than the aircraft capabiities. The allies chose to use them against airbases, railheads, and industry. There is no reason that an allied player in WiTP should be bound by this strategic decision, just as the Japanese player should not be forced to send 4 of his carriers half way across the Pacific blind in support of an invasion of an insignificant atoll.

In my opinion, the game engine handles all aspects of the airwar very well. That is just my opinion. If I did not think so, I would not enjoy the game.

Everyone points to the single big example of Cobra for 4EB. How about the massive 'friendly fire' casualties that happened in several the Bocage attacks there. Didn't the army lose a 3-Star General who went to watch and got killed when they bombed short?

Simple reality, as alluded to earlier, is that the game engine simply cannot handle it.

EX: June 5th Turn just run in Dan and I's game. A 32 plane Liberator attack at Batangas against troops in Sz-4 Forts, not moving, two AA units present, and CAP. Result: 1 Liberator shot down, 11 Damaged to AA/Fighters, and 404 Japanese Cas on the ground.

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Aurorus)

Post #: 3577

June 1944 - 3/18/2017 3:48:39 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

June 5, 1944

Back to the war...

Japanese IHQ has been highly concerned about the lack of American Army troops being seen in the SW Pacific offensive. There has been great worries of a third front (after Burma--Thailand and the DEI) opening but this turn calms fears somewhat. Three US Inf Div are identified in the attack upon Lucena. There are certainly more with 38 units still in Legaspi.

Thank goodness these are finally spotted. Orders are given to lift to full strength, experienced ID out of the Marianas for deployment elsewhere. Additionally, four HQ units present in the Marianas will also be lifted for redeployment. Southern Army to go to Formosa. The AK/APs are already there so this shall be done quickly.

At Tokyo an Infantry Division begins loading.

An additional ID will be pulled from the Kuriles as well.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 3/18/2017 4:25:50 PM >

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 3578

RE: June 1944 - 3/18/2017 3:59:54 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

I nicely successful aerial ambush occurred today over Central Luzon. Results are very pleasant:

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 3579

RE: June 1944 - 3/18/2017 4:28:05 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anachro

Serial 0228E June 3, 1942
SECRET

From: Commander-in-Chief, Combined Fleet
To: Commander, Mobile Fleet (Operation Plan Z)
Subject: Letter of Instruction

1. In carrying out the task assigned in Operation Z you will be governed
by the principle of calculated risk, which you shall interpret to mean the avoidance
of exposure of your force to attack by superior enemy forces without good prospect
of inflicting, as a result of such exposure, greater damage to the enemy.

2. The fate of the nation rests on the outcome of this one battle and you should act
accordingly.

Toyoda

The Fleet raises anchor after six weeks in Yokohoma. First step is moving to Hiroshima where another Daitai of M8 will convert to Sam. After that, the TFs move on the Naha, Okinawa.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Anachro)

Post #: 3580

RE: June 1944 - 3/18/2017 6:10:46 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DRF99

So the main KB is:
418F, 229DB, 170TB

And the DEI KB is:
218F, 55DB, 87TB

Combined they would be:
636F, 284DB, 257TB

Are you better combining them? Would the combined KB have a significantly better chance going toe-to-toe against the Death Star or not? I don't know the answer but if the present main KB would have a low chance of success and the combined a 50/50 or better chance you should consider combining them. I'm not sure what the benefit of the DEI KB is and if it's worth the increased risk to the main KB.

DRF

I concur with this thinking. Keeping the CVs in the DEI has allowed me to strike several times and keep him honest with Burma. That pair of BBs has done excellent service as well. It is time to bring some of them thru to link-up with the rest of Fleet.

Am thinking about exchanging Akagi, Aso, and Ikoma for Junyo. This would add over 160 planes to the main force while still keeping a diversionary strike force available.

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to DRF99)

Post #: 3581

RE: June 1944 - 3/18/2017 6:27:34 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

Diversionary strike force? You are smoking something!

What do they say about splitting your forces in front of a larger enemy force. How about a larger enemy force with better intel?

Dance very cautiously, my friend as you need your CVs to survive for another six to 12 months.

Truth most likely is his CVEs can take on the KB and win. One CV strike against a defended target will likely cost you 600+ planes shot down and if his strike planes get thru...well then.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 3582

RE: June 1944 - 3/18/2017 7:35:44 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Now THAT is encouraging!

I mean by Diversionary Strike Force that this group of CVs--considering he has EVERYTHING in ONE place--carries enough firepower to smash something as well as defend itself.

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 3583

RE: June 1944 - 3/19/2017 3:50:13 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

June 6, 1944

Perhaps I offended at the use of Horse Caca? Let me add Bantha Poo-Doo, Toro Caca, and many more to the list.

Batangas
Three major bomber strikes at Batangas (Fort-4, 2 AA units, and CAP).

1. The first attack is a massed attack involving over 120 Liberators and roughly 24 2EB. They hit and DESTROY the 7th Shipping Eng Reg with 1,004 Cas. The unit ceases to exist.

2. A group of 24 Liberators hits an ID for 379 Cas.

3. 20 Liberators hit an Engineer Reg for 278 Cas.

4. Now reverse things with a strike of 42 2EB and 18 Liberators causing 116 Cas to an ID.

Well...four fully rested and at capacity Frank Sentai arrive at Clark. They are ordered to CAP Batangas with everything they have...

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 3/19/2017 3:57:58 AM >

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 3584

RE: June 1944 - 3/19/2017 3:53:43 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

The Kido Butai moves towards Hiroshima and will arrive tomorrow.

The two Tanker TF I had begun describing last week have now passed Hong Kong and look to be in excellent shape. This will be a near 200,000 Fuel/Oil delivery.

The next TK TF is within 3-4 days of ready. Should be carrying a similar amount.

The 1.0x10^6 is spotted just west of Panay. Is he moving away? Let us hope so. Should have the Kido Butai in position at Naha or Daito Saito within 4 days.

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 3585

RE: June 1944 - 3/19/2017 4:06:41 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

June 6, 1944

China
The Chinese army awoke from its slumber about a month ago and moved south along the Liuchow--Nanning Line. Facing no Allied air, the Japanese took control of the skies and used 150 bombers to good effect. Should note that the AVERAGE casualties inflicted/30 bombers was around 100.

In pulling an ID from another base, the Japanese drove the Chinese out of Liuchow on May 25th. Chinese losses were 890 Squads (13,667 cas) and 40 Guns for 1,490 Japanese.

The two ID freed up then moved SW and attacked the lone Chinese Corps present in hex 73,55 inflicting 125 Squads (1,879 Cas) for just 231 Japanese.

The move continued SW to Nanning where on June 5th, the Chinese suffered a 19-1 assault destroying 158 Squads (1,733 Cas) and 24 Guns for 376 IJA Troops.

This makes eight Chinese Corps beaten-up in three weeks. Pretty decent performance.

Now the THREE ID are moving back towards Liuchow with the intention of linking up with the 3rd TK Div and will now begin working UP the railroad clearing the hexes to the NE.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 3586

June 1944 - 3/19/2017 7:28:44 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

I'd say this qualifies for CAP over Batangas on June 7th and look at the result:

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to MechFO)

Post #: 3587

RE: June 1944 - 3/19/2017 7:31:51 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

On the OTHER hand, I sprang a nice surprise this turn by moving a Daitai of good Judys down the Solomon Chain to find a small Invasion unloading at Luganville. A morning and then afternoon strike hits the Landing Force and gets great results:

AM 21 Judy hit an AP and 3 AK while sinking an SC.
PM 17 Judy smash 2 AP and an AK sinking the trio.

Troops lost with each attack totaling over 600 for the day. Not much but a good result.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 3588

RE: May 1944 - 3/19/2017 9:21:02 AM

Aurorus

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Everyone points to the single big example of Cobra for 4EB. How about the massive 'friendly fire' casualties that happened in several the Bocage attacks there. Didn't the army lose a 3-Star General who went to watch and got killed when they bombed short?

Simple reality, as alluded to earlier, is that the game engine simply cannot handle it.

EX: June 5th Turn just run in Dan and I's game. A 32 plane Liberator attack at Batangas against troops in Sz-4 Forts, not moving, two AA units present, and CAP. Result: 1 Liberator shot down, 11 Damaged to AA/Fighters, and 404 Japanese Cas on the ground.

Yes, a U.S. general was sacked after Cobra and allied senior commanders railed against using the 4 Es as close support bombers.

However, Cobra is not the best example. Have a look at John Grehan and Martin Mace's Far East Air Operations 1942-1945. What you will discover is that the casualty reports that you are seeing are almost exactly in line with those reported from very similar strikes, by the same number and type of bombers, in the same type of terrain.

See for example, the comments on the use of Strategic Air Force in Indirect Support of the 14th army in Burma. Page 118 "A notable attack of this type was mounted on 13th January against Mandalay... 54 aircraft [B-24s mostly] attacked the Japanese-occupied district and a further 12 the suburb of Sagaing on the opposite side of the river, the operation being preceded by attacks by Thunderbolts upon anti-aircraft gun sites in the neighborhood and accompanied by fighter sweeps... intelligence reports variously estimated Japanese casualties alone at 600 and a 1,000, in addition to those inflicted upon Burmese puppet troops."

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 3589

RE: June 1944 - 3/19/2017 11:32:12 AM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

withdrawn

< Message edited by JohnDillworth -- 3/19/2017 11:33:23 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 3590

RE: June 1944 - 3/19/2017 12:40:56 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I'd say this qualifies for CAP over Batangas on June 7th and look at the result:

Sorry, I misread your earlier intention with respect to a diversionary KB wing.

You must have had that CAP at high altitudes given the low damage, your warning time is extremely low for bombers, and from the damage inflicted very low -- I bet very few fighters actually intercepted.

That could have been a real stinging victory for you. Pity you didn't have a 25 minute warning.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 3591

RE: June 1944 - 3/19/2017 2:54:05 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Correct. I have been using the Franks at 30K so they generally get the bounce over the P-47s. This time the fighters came in last and I was out of position. Altered this for the next turn by keeping the Franks high but placing a layer of Georges at 15-20K. Should work to start the fight and then give the Franks a chance.

Aurorus: Thank you for the reference. I will look it up. If I am totally off-base here then we'll do apologize; however, I don't think I am.

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 3592

RE: June 1944 - 3/19/2017 2:56:01 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

The wife took the boys on a church overnight so Dan and I got in three turns and binged on Season 4 of Game of Thrones. Turned into a rather late night but much accomplished.

Am almost done with The Fast Carriers. It is an eye opening, magnificent read. Cannot believe I had not read it before. Heartily recommend this book to any of you.

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 3593

RE: June 1944 - 3/19/2017 3:37:46 PM

Anachro

Posts: 2506
Joined: 11/23/2015
From: The Coastal Elite
Status: offline

I remember someone presenting the results of a series of tests on the effects of layered vs unlayered (all high-altitude) CAP in a dogfight. They concluded that having a layered CAP defense produced better combat results for the defender when facing enemy fighters. Not sure what others think of this, but I always try to keep a layered CAP, if only to keep the enemy honest if he tries to go low altitude with bombers to get under my fighters.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 3594

RE: June 1944 - 3/19/2017 4:42:59 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Makes a BUNCH of sense to me.

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Anachro)

Post #: 3595

RE: June 1944 - 3/19/2017 4:44:16 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Have to admit to a bit of a long-term plan here. I've been keeping my Kamikazes back for the right moment. They are all training at 1,000Ft. My keeping fighter WAY UP will, hopefully, provide for a serious opportunity in a bit.

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 3596

RE: June 1944 - 3/19/2017 4:53:36 PM

Anachro

Posts: 2506
Joined: 11/23/2015
From: The Coastal Elite
Status: offline

I remember it mentioned (maybe by Nemo) that kamikaze's can be very effective, but only if used in mass (i.e. extremely large numbers all at once in one turn). So your thought process to save them up is correct, but I would NOT throw them away unless the right and potentially highly rewarding opportunity arises.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 3597

RE: June 1944 - 3/19/2017 7:10:42 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Agreed. I am strongly thinking of using them en masse with a land- and sea-based effort. This MAY occur in the next week. I want Dan to move away from the Central Philippines with his CVs. Will then launch a massive air, land, and sea attack all aimed at Legaspi and Naga.

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Anachro)

Post #: 3598

RE: June 1944 - 3/19/2017 7:11:27 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Idol question: Can Kamikazes be used for Port Attacks? Strongly think no but want to ask anyway....

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 3599

RE: June 1944 - 3/19/2017 7:31:36 PM

Anachro

Posts: 2506
Joined: 11/23/2015
From: The Coastal Elite
Status: offline

7.4.2.3 KAMIKAZES

Once a squadron is converted to Kamikaze, it may only conduct three Mission types � Kamikaze, Training, and Stand Down. The Kamikaze Mission is a variant of the Naval Attack Mission, which of course if successful means unit casualties.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 3600