Japanese sub floatplane units

Japanese sub floatplane units (Full Version)

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

Message

DaveB -> Japanese sub floatplane units (1/2/2008 10:13:41 PM)
I give up, before anyone posts the 'Must read thread' address I've spent 3 days trying to find this - which probably says more about my inability to pick the right words for the search option.... I'm playing the Japanese for the first time, and some of my I-class subs have search planes aboard, others don't. I'd like to disband an Alf group to load an FP on all my subs, I suspect thr RO's can;t carry them though. Can I add FP's to subs, if so how? I've got a few I class subs in Saigon, and an Alf unit sitting there, but the 'transfer to ship' option doesn't bring subs up and there's no option to split the FP unit up into the fragments I suspect I need. Are you limited to the existing ship/sub borne units provided at startup, or can FP's be added to subs that don't start the scenario already carrying them? I'm playing Big B mod, but this mostly seems to run as per stock for things like this....

spence -> RE: Japanese sub floatplane units (1/2/2008 10:25:39 PM)
Matrix didn't get this 100% correct. I don't play IJN much but the only sub-capable a/c should be the Glen. Alfs and Jakes apparently can be put on subs but I don't think they would have fit in the hangars IRL so they wouldn't have been any good in this role (and to put them there would be pure gamey). Only subs with hull numbers in the I-10 to I-30 range would be capable of carrying a plane in any case IRL (don't think even all of those could). If you have a sub with an airgroup (1 plane but no plane assigned) I think you'll just have to wait til a Glen gets produced to equip the sub.

Mike Solli -> RE: Japanese sub floatplane units (1/2/2008 10:26:28 PM)
Not all Japanese subs can carry floatplanes. When you click on a sub TF, if the sub capacity is 0, it can't carry a floatplane. If it has a capacity of 1, it can carry a floatplane. Also, some people think it's gamey to have a sub carry anything other than a Glen.

Kull -> RE: Japanese sub floatplane units (1/2/2008 10:47:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaveB I give up, before anyone posts the 'Must read thread' address I've spent 3 days trying to find this - which probably says more about my inability to pick the right words for the search option.... I'm playing the Japanese for the first time, and some of my I-class subs have search planes aboard, others don't. I'd like to disband an Alf group to load an FP on all my subs, I suspect thr RO's can;t carry them though. Can I add FP's to subs, if so how? I've got a few I class subs in Saigon, and an Alf unit sitting there, but the 'transfer to ship' option doesn't bring subs up and there's no option to split the FP unit up into the fragments I suspect I need. Are you limited to the existing ship/sub borne units provided at startup, or can FP's be added to subs that don't start the scenario already carrying them? I'm playing Big B mod, but this mostly seems to run as per stock for things like this.... I can only speak to the "stock" game, but the Glen-carriers are I-7 to I-11 and I-15 to I-32 (excepting 16, 18, 20, 22, & 24). You can transfer in a 1-plane search daitai from one of the BBs, CAs, or CLs, but as noted by spence, that's gamey. You can also transfer one of the Glen's over to a capacity-size-one AV and upgrade it. That's a lot less gamey.

Panther Bait -> RE: Japanese sub floatplane units (1/2/2008 11:12:45 PM)
According to the Combined Fleet webpage, only the Type J3, and the various Type A and Type B subs carried float planes. These include: I-7 through I-15, I-17, I-19, I-21, I-23, I-25 though I-45, I-54, I-56, and I-58 It also sounds like some of these were modified to remove the plane handling facilities in favor of other weapon mixes. Also, I-400 through I-402 carried float bombers (Myrts, IIRC), but they were never used as they weren't ready in time.

DaveB -> RE: Japanese sub floatplane units (1/2/2008 11:28:32 PM)
Okay, thanks for the info - got spare Glens (that's no problem), I've trawled through and found A1, B1 and J3's FP capable... ie few enough to ensure that the only subs that have made port are from non-FP capable classes, making me wonder which button I wasn't seeing.... Gamey - presumably as Glen folds up...no problem with that, I'm very familiar with US/Allied kit, less so with some of the Japanese equipment once we're out of the Zero/Betty/Val/Kate neck of the woods. I have no problem sticking to Glen for subs. Thanks all for the info, that's enough to sort me out.

crsutton -> RE: Japanese sub floatplane units (1/3/2008 12:27:40 AM)
Here is a beautifully restored Aichi (M6A1) Seiran at the Air and Space Museum in Washington DC. http://collections.nasm.si.edu/media/full/A19630308000cp08.jpg

FeurerKrieg -> RE: Japanese sub floatplane units (1/3/2008 1:11:07 AM)
I have a great book on the subject if anyone has any specific RL questions on Japanese (or any nationality for that matter) sub based aircraft. CHS did add the Serian to the large late war subs that were built to carry three of the Serians for offensive air attack missions.

DaveB -> RE: Japanese sub floatplane units (1/3/2008 8:01:12 PM)
I suppose shoving a Betty onto the RO's would be considered 'a touch gamey' then?[:D]

kfmiller41 -> RE: Japanese sub floatplane units (1/3/2008 8:30:22 PM)
gamey yes, damn good idea yes, torpedo put into allied carrier just outside San Fran harbor Priceless[:D]

Mynok -> RE: Japanese sub floatplane units (1/3/2008 9:25:28 PM)
Who needs Betties for that? [:D]

Mike Scholl -> RE: Japanese sub floatplane units (1/3/2008 9:42:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaveB I suppose shoving a Betty onto the RO's would be considered 'a touch gamey' then?[:D] Not to mention totally rediculous...., can you picture a sub crew out on deck in the heaving North Pacific with a set of plans and a rivet gun trying to put together a Betty from the pile of parts it would have to be broken down into to fit on a submarine? Make a great cartoon.

Feinder -> RE: Japanese sub floatplane units (1/3/2008 9:53:37 PM)
Do folks really get hung up over putting anything but Glens on subs? I mean, really, does it make -THAT- big a difference? "Realistic" - no. But I reserve "Gamey" for more something of malicious intent (that actually makes a differnce in the outcome of a game). But if my opponent put Jakes on his subs, I could really care less. But that might just be me. -F-

DaveB -> RE: Japanese sub floatplane units (1/4/2008 3:58:04 AM)
Well yeah Mike, but look on the bright side - I bet the second one would go together in half the time the first one took.... Dave

treespider -> RE: Japanese sub floatplane units (1/4/2008 4:13:57 AM)
How about a sub seriving as a refueling base for some Emily's or Mavis's?

kfmiller41 -> RE: Japanese sub floatplane units (1/4/2008 4:58:49 AM)
wasnt that the Japanese plan for part of the midway operation. Seem to remember reading that somewhere

Mike Scholl -> RE: Japanese sub floatplane units (1/4/2008 8:15:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: miller41 wasnt that the Japanese plan for part of the midway operation. Seem to remember reading that somewhere The idea was to meet up and re-fuel the flying boats at French Frigate Shoals..., but the Americans got there first. Wasn't really a feasible operation without some type of sheltered anchorage.

treespider -> RE: Japanese sub floatplane units (1/4/2008 4:19:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: miller41 wasnt that the Japanese plan for part of the midway operation. Seem to remember reading that somewhere The idea was to meet up and re-fuel the flying boats at French Frigate Shoals..., but the Americans got there first. Wasn't really a feasible operation without some type of sheltered anchorage. I agree...perhaps allowing one or two AV support to be added to a base by a couple of the Japanese subs ina fashion similar to AV's. But then I suppose that would require the base to be friendly. As far as historicity IIRC the Japanese had conducted this operation prior to Midway in March and had intended to repeat it except the US intercepted the orders and conveniently parked a DD in the anchorage. Shattered Swords discusses the earlier ops on page 50.

rtrapasso -> RE: Japanese sub floatplane units (1/4/2008 4:53:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: treespider quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: miller41 wasnt that the Japanese plan for part of the midway operation. Seem to remember reading that somewhere The idea was to meet up and re-fuel the flying boats at French Frigate Shoals..., but the Americans got there first. Wasn't really a feasible operation without some type of sheltered anchorage. I agree...perhaps allowing one or two AV support to be added to a base by a couple of the Japanese subs ina fashion similar to AV's. But then I suppose that would require the base to be friendly. As far as historicity IIRC the Japanese had conducted this operation prior to Midway in March and had intended to repeat it except the US intercepted the orders and conveniently parked a DD in the anchorage. Shattered Swords discusses the earlier ops on page 50. Yes, they had conducted a spectacularly ineffective bombing raid on PH from French Frigate Shoals (FFS) using the Mavis* (iirc)... the bombs fell miles from the target, and the USN was unaware that the raid had even taken place (for some time). Eventually, they did figure it out, and mined FFS and parked some ships there as well. Of course, game mechanics of WITP would not exactly allow this - you can't seize an enemy base like FFS without the owner knowing about it immediately. Similar mechanics prevent the building of "secret bases" which was conducted by both sides. EDIT: *Nope - it was Emilys - operation K-1, conducted 1-5 March 1942. See: http://www.combinedfleet.com/I-9.htm

FeurerKrieg -> RE: Japanese sub floatplane units (1/5/2008 2:20:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feinder Do folks really get hung up over putting anything but Glens on subs? I mean, really, does it make -THAT- big a difference? "Realistic" - no. But I reserve "Gamey" for more something of malicious intent (that actually makes a differnce in the outcome of a game). But if my opponent put Jakes on his subs, I could really care less. But that might just be me. -F- Well, I'd be annoyed. The Glen's already are better at naval search than IRL. Putting a range 7 Alf (in stock) on the glens would be too much. In CHS, the GLen range was cut down by 1 hex. Putting a Jake on in CHS means that you could hit a ship with a 100kg bomb, which does quite a bit more damage than a 30kg bomb that I think the Glen carries.

VSWG -> RE: Japanese sub floatplane units (1/5/2008 2:45:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feinder Do folks really get hung up over putting anything but Glens on subs? It certainly isn't important, but it says a lot about an opponent who KNOWS that subs could only handle Glens, and nevertheless decides to convert them to other float planes. For me, this would be an indicator that he and I have different opinions on how to play this game.

erstad -> RE: Japanese sub floatplane units (1/5/2008 3:12:16 AM)
An airgroup with one ready plane won't conduct offensive missions in any case.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.8125