RE: CL Boise On Steroids?

RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

Mike Solli -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/8/2007 10:06:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icedawg 23 Kates? How did you get 23 Kates onto the Ryujo (I assume that's where they came from) so early in the game (only four days in)? The max # of aircraft in Ryujo's Kate section is 19, so you clearly had another unit aboard. How did you transfer that unit all the way to Palau (or the general vicinity thereof) so early on? Did you take a few small undefended airfields in the Philippines with paratroopers and leap-frog a Kate squadron from Japan (or the one stationed on the Hosho perhaps)? While I'm on the topic of the Ryujo, what is the best strategy for using her early on? Is she better used to hunt down allied ships in the Philippines and Dutch East Indies, or to provide air cover for transport TF's in the same area? With just one section of Kates and one section of Zero's, it doesn't seem as though her original compliment of aircraft will be sufficient to do either. Currently, I lean towards transferiing her Kates to Palau, then transferring a second Zero squadron from Takao to her decks. Doing so gives me a potent little CAP assemblage of 50+ Zero's scouring the skies over those invasion forces immediately bound for Amboina, Kendari, Tarakan and Balikpapan. Without this supplemented CAP, my invasion forces usually take a slight-to-moderate beating from Martins and Hudsons on the way to their destinations. With this extra CAP, they ususally make it to their landing sites unscathed. Instead of transferring the Kates off, you may want to consider attaching the CVE Taiyo to the TF and put a daitai of Zeros on board. What good is a carrier TF with no offensive punch?

Icedawg -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/8/2007 10:11:52 PM)
But the Taiyo is way up near Sasebo. It's going to take a week or two for her to get into the action from way up there. (I guess I should have mentioned I only play the Dec 8th scenario (no 1st turn Jap movement bonus). It seems as though the Dec 7th scenario never gives any kind of Pearl Harbor results close to the real thing so I don't bother playing that one.)

Nikademus -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/8/2007 11:04:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: niceguy2005 Is it a bug or was the Boise's armor actually that thick? Her armor stats are not the issue. Even 2in of armor in the game is enough to stop most light caliber weapons regardless of range . That leaves DD's and some older CL's with only their torpedoes for defense and even LL's can't always hit.

ctangus -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/8/2007 11:37:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icedawg 23 Kates? How did you get 23 Kates onto the Ryujo (I assume that's where they came from) so early in the game (only four days in)? Those were HI based Kates I bought out & sent to Pagan. Boise was fleeing east after I'd spotted her on the 7th & 8th and some floatplanes put a couple bombs into her. quote: While I'm on the topic of the Ryujo, what is the best strategy for using her early on? Is she better used to hunt down allied ships in the Philippines and Dutch East Indies, or to provide air cover for transport TF's in the same area? With just one section of Kates and one section of Zero's, it doesn't seem as though her original compliment of aircraft will be sufficient to do either. Beats me - I'm a Japanese newb myself! [:'(] Though I'm using her (with Zuiho & Hosho) mostly to provide air cover.

tsimmonds -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/9/2007 12:57:55 AM)
quote: Is she better used to hunt down allied ships in the Philippines and Dutch East Indies, or to provide air cover for transport TF's in the same area? Who says you can't do both? She and Zuiho make a good early team; together they have what, 46 VF and 30 VT? Toss in Hosho and Taiyo as well, if you don't mind the loss of speed.

Ian R -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/9/2007 5:35:43 AM)
Armor: Don't forget USN ships were getting STS armor, which worked better than anyone else's. The armor ratings may well take that into account.

Icedawg -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/12/2007 2:42:15 PM)
If I were to play a Dec 7th scenario (with the first turn movement bonus), I would. However, I only play the Dec 8th scenario, so it would just take way to long for the Zuiho, Hosho and Taiyo to get far enough south to help out. I like to try to take some of the important resource and oil bases as quickly as possible, so all I have in the immediate area is the Ryujo (at least for the first two weeks or so). If I didn't care about taking those bases so quickly, these other three carriers plus the Ryujo would definitely be grouped into one TF.

tsimmonds -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/12/2007 3:09:57 PM)
IMHO, you are giving up an awful lot just to make sure you sink a couple of old battleships.[;)]

Icedawg -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/12/2007 5:47:42 PM)
I agree with you. The turn one movement advantage is HUGE compared to a couple of these obsolete ships, but I am one of those "historically-accurate psycho's" [:D] and it just bothers me like crazy to see the Dec 7th strike turn out so ahistorical.

crsutton -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/12/2007 6:34:24 PM)
The Brooklyn's incredible rate of fire was due to automatic loaders in the main turrets. However, I thought that some of the early ships of this class did not have auto loaders in the early stages of the war. Does anyone know about the Boise? I can't find a source.

tsimmonds -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/12/2007 6:36:31 PM)
The Brooklyns did not have automatic loaders; neither did the followup Clevelands. Auto-loaders for the 6"/47 were introduced only with the Worcester class. I'm sure much of the shell handling was mechanized--and I believe that the 6"/47 was the largest US naval gun to use a "cartridge"-type shell (brass casing attached to the shell); this would have greatly eased the loading process compared with the 8" guns, which used bagged powder, and whose shells were too heavy for one man to muscle onto loading trays.

crsutton -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/12/2007 7:00:37 PM)
Thanks for the info. Do you know of a good source. Obviously, I need to do some reading?

tsimmonds -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (2/12/2007 7:08:14 PM)
Friedman, US Cruisers, is the best book I have read on the subject. I don't know of a good online resource. Here is a link to some interesting pics. There is a good picture showing that the powder was in a brass canister, but the canister was not attached to the shell.

herwin -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (3/14/2007 4:43:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icedawg Turret armor is not the issue. Rate of fire is the issue. I know the 6 inchers have a high rate of fire, but when the Boise is being attacked by 10+ IJN ships and she is getting off 30 to 40 times the number of shots AS THE ENTIRE IJN TASK FORCE, either those gunners are on crystal meth or there is some kind of bug here. The 6 inch rifles on USN CLs were manually loaded and limited in their rate of fire by how fast ammo could be delivered to them, not how fast they could be reloaded. The Brooklyns, in particular, were designed to overwhelm unarmored opponents with fire. This was the approach taken in USN gun and turret design from the 30s on. The 5"L38 could sustain 15 RPM with a good crew, the 6" rifles could sustain 10, the 8" rifles could sustain 4, the 12" rifles, 3, and the later 16" rifles, 2.5. "Quantity has a quality all its own."

spence -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (3/14/2007 6:39:18 PM)
quote: you'd think that this CL that performs like the Yamato would draw some attention (especially since the Boise didn't have any kind of legendary performances to her credit). Actually Boise did perform quite well in action; certainly better than Yamato ever did. Yamato's historical claim to fame seems to have been that she committed suicide. Oh yeah I forgot: she participated along with most of the rest of the battlefleet in a desperate surface action against the overwhelming power of TAFFY 3.

Mike Solli -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (3/14/2007 7:25:43 PM)
How's this for the first attack of the Boise (occurred in the 3x3 AAR): AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/09/41 Night Time Surface Combat, near Amboina at 40,74 Allied aircraft no flights Allied aircraft losses SOC-3 Seagull: 2 destroyed Japanese Ships CL Nagara DD Yukikaze DD Tokitsukaze DD Umikaze DD Suzukaze DD Shiokaze Allied Ships CL Boise, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk [:D]

Wolfie1 -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (3/14/2007 7:37:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Solli How's this for the first attack of the Boise (occurred in the 3x3 AAR): AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/09/41 Night Time Surface Combat, near Amboina at 40,74 Allied aircraft no flights Allied aircraft losses SOC-3 Seagull: 2 destroyed Japanese Ships CL Nagara DD Yukikaze DD Tokitsukaze DD Umikaze DD Suzukaze DD Shiokaze Allied Ships CL Boise, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk [:D] Fluke[;)]

niceguy2005 -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (3/14/2007 7:48:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Solli How's this for the first attack of the Boise (occurred in the 3x3 AAR): AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/09/41 Night Time Surface Combat, near Amboina at 40,74 Allied aircraft no flights Allied aircraft losses SOC-3 Seagull: 2 destroyed Japanese Ships CL Nagara DD Yukikaze DD Tokitsukaze DD Umikaze DD Suzukaze DD Shiokaze Allied Ships CL Boise, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk [:D] Reliving past glories are we? Why don't you tell them about Marblehead also. [;)]

Mike Solli -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (3/14/2007 8:04:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: niceguy2005 quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Solli How's this for the first attack of the Boise (occurred in the 3x3 AAR): AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/09/41 Night Time Surface Combat, near Amboina at 40,74 Allied aircraft no flights Allied aircraft losses SOC-3 Seagull: 2 destroyed Japanese Ships CL Nagara DD Yukikaze DD Tokitsukaze DD Umikaze DD Suzukaze DD Shiokaze Allied Ships CL Boise, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk [:D] Reliving past glories are we? Why don't you tell them about Marblehead also. [;)] She'll show up on the sunk list in a couple of months. [;)]

panda124c -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (3/14/2007 8:14:00 PM)
CL-40 Brooklyn The Brooklyn class light cruisers were the US Navy�s first attempt at a "light cruiser" built under the terms of the London Treaty of 1930. This treaty banned the construction of 8" gun heavy cruisers, on which the US Navy had previously focused its efforts. Probably the most noticeable feature of the class is the gun layout, an unprecedented fifteen 6" guns in five turrets, three forward and two aft. As the US Navy studied the feasibility of a 10,000 ton cruiser, the Brooklyn design started off from where the New Orleans class heavy cruisers left off. But the advent of Japan's Mogami class cruisers, which featured fifteen 6" guns, led to the requirement that Brooklyn carry at least as many. The distinctive three turrets forward, two aft configuration was unique among US Cruisers, but the Brooklyns shared this configuration with the Japanese Mogamis. The general outline of the gun mounts as undoubtely copied from the Japanese Takao class heavy cruisers. The ships, with its 6" main gun, ended up as a totally revised design, being the source of all subsequent US cruiser designs up to the Des Moines class. The class was unique in different respects, as they were the first flushdeck cruisers, which was necessary because the ships were to receive a hangar in the stern, belowdecks. The Brooklyn class had a number of differences between its member ships, amd the last two units -- St. Louis and Helena -- are treated as a separate class. The first seven ships had a highly different superstructure layout. The final two ships received twin mounts for their secondary armament and the later 127mm L/38, while the earlier ships kept their 127mm L/25 in open mounts. The design of the Brooklyn-class light cruisers was validated through wargaming. The result was very sturdy ships that survived many kamikaze attacks during WWII. All of these ships except Savannah and Honolulu found their way into foreign navies after the end of the War. The only ship of this class lost in combat was the Phoenix during the Falklands Conflict in 1982, she had been sold to Argentina and renamed General Belgrano. If I remember correctly the Brooklyn class light cruisers were designed to be used as shotguns thus smothering any target with 6" rounds. Also remember that the Japanesse viewed light cruisers as destroyer leader so they were not armed like US light crusiers.

Mike Solli -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (3/14/2007 8:18:05 PM)
If a Japanese CL came across a Brooklyn class CL (or any US CL for that matter), she didn't stand a chance unless she hit with Long Lances before she was spotted. [:(]

niceguy2005 -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (3/14/2007 8:34:15 PM)
Agreed, in wargames conducted by Allied command [;)] we continually ran US CLs of various classes and configurations in fights with Japanese heavy cruisers. The US CLs did exceedingly well. It requires aggressive commanders though that will take the fight to point blank range where the 6" guns have enough energy to penetrate the CA armor. At that range and rate of fire the CAs can be mauled...I don't know if this is historically accurate.

herwin -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (3/14/2007 11:21:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pbear CL-40 Brooklyn The Brooklyn class light cruisers were the US Navy�s first attempt at a "light cruiser" built under the terms of the London Treaty of 1930. This treaty banned the construction of 8" gun heavy cruisers, on which the US Navy had previously focused its efforts. Probably the most noticeable feature of the class is the gun layout, an unprecedented fifteen 6" guns in five turrets, three forward and two aft. As the US Navy studied the feasibility of a 10,000 ton cruiser, the Brooklyn design started off from where the New Orleans class heavy cruisers left off. But the advent of Japan's Mogami class cruisers, which featured fifteen 6" guns, led to the requirement that Brooklyn carry at least as many. The distinctive three turrets forward, two aft configuration was unique among US Cruisers, but the Brooklyns shared this configuration with the Japanese Mogamis. The general outline of the gun mounts as undoubtely copied from the Japanese Takao class heavy cruisers. The ships, with its 6" main gun, ended up as a totally revised design, being the source of all subsequent US cruiser designs up to the Des Moines class. The class was unique in different respects, as they were the first flushdeck cruisers, which was necessary because the ships were to receive a hangar in the stern, belowdecks. The Brooklyn class had a number of differences between its member ships, amd the last two units -- St. Louis and Helena -- are treated as a separate class. The first seven ships had a highly different superstructure layout. The final two ships received twin mounts for their secondary armament and the later 127mm L/38, while the earlier ships kept their 127mm L/25 in open mounts. The design of the Brooklyn-class light cruisers was validated through wargaming. The result was very sturdy ships that survived many kamikaze attacks during WWII. All of these ships except Savannah and Honolulu found their way into foreign navies after the end of the War. The only ship of this class lost in combat was the Phoenix during the Falklands Conflict in 1982, she had been sold to Argentina and renamed General Belgrano. If I remember correctly the Brooklyn class light cruisers were designed to be used as shotguns thus smothering any target with 6" rounds. Also remember that the Japanesse viewed light cruisers as destroyer leader so they were not armed like US light crusiers. The effect of penetrating WWII AP projectile hits against ship targets was proportional to the square of the projectile diameter. The resistance to sinking of WWII-era warships was proportional to their waterline area. (Ref: OR studies) So a Brooklyn with a maximum sustained RoF of about 150-180 6-inch rounds per minute had an effect of 5400-6480 units per minute. A Washington class BB had an effect of 22.5x256 = 5760 units per minute. An Astoria class CA had an effect of 36x64 = 2304 units per minute. A Fletcher class DD had an effect of 75x25 = 1875 units per minute. The difference between a Washington class BB and a Brooklyn CL was the greater armor protection/penetration and waterline area of the battleship. Ditto for the difference between an Astoria class CA and a Fletcher class DD. The Yamato had an effect (ignoring the 6.1" secondary armament) of 4374/minute. The Kongo had an effect of 3136/minute.

Procrustes -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (3/29/2007 4:32:02 AM)
Not in my game. [:(] I sent the Boise and three destroyers to intercept a small landing TF in the PI. They met the loan IJN destroyer escort, and got their butz kicked in two back-to-back night combats: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Jolo at 38,59 Japanese Ships DD Hibiki, Shell hits 5, on fire Allied Ships CL Boise, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, on fire DD Barker, Shell hits 1 DD Paul Jones, Shell hits 2 DD Parrott, Shell hits 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Jolo at 38,59 Japanese Ships DD Hibiki, Shell hits 9, on fire, heavy damage Allied Ships CL Boise, Shell hits 1, on fire, heavy damage DD Barker, Shell hits 3, on fire, heavy damage DD Paul Jones, Shell hits 1, on fire DD Parrott -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Boise has sys damage in the 50's and float damage in the 60, the Barker is going to sink, the other two DD's will be in the docks for a while. Got that destroyer the next day. Don't know who that IJN captain was, but I did salute him.

Iridium -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (3/29/2007 5:34:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Procrustes Not in my game. [:(] I believe they call this the Kung Fu effect.[:(]

Feinder -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (3/29/2007 6:01:41 AM)
I have to admit, I'm addicted that Hibiki AAR. I kinda hate to see her shot up like that in anybody's game... At least she was heroic. [:(] -F-

bradfordkay -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (3/29/2007 7:41:39 AM)
"They met the loan IJN destroyer escort, and got their butz kicked in two back-to-back night combats: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Jolo at 38,59 Japanese Ships DD Hibiki, Shell hits 5, on fire " Let me guess, she was on loan to M&M Corporation, right?

ny59giants -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (3/29/2007 4:26:02 PM)
I've had better luck with Boise in a single ship SCTF vs. with other ships. [&o][&o] Anyone else have the same outcome??

Procrustes -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (3/29/2007 5:24:37 PM)
The heroic Hibiki. She took 14 hits when she jumped the Boise and her escorts, and during the next day she caught a 100lb bomb from a FB. Yet the next night she "suprised" five Dutch DD's I sent back to the same hex! She had no fight left in her, though - she went down after just two more hits.

jumper -> RE: CL Boise On Steroids? (11/20/2007 12:29:58 PM)
Just adding something to Boise legend [;)]: Japanese Ships AV Sanyo Maru AV Sanuki Maru CA Maya, Shell hits 13, on fire, heavy damage CA Ashigara, Shell hits 24, on fire, heavy damage CL Kuma DD Asakaze DD Harukaze DD Matsukaze APD Patrol Boat No. 39 Allied Ships CL Boise, Shell hits 22, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk Boise is sunk, but both CA will join her soon.. If just my BBs fought at least half as good.. [:'(]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.125