Best Practices Discussion: The Rufe and Float Fighters (Full Version)

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



Message

niceguy2005 -> Best Practices Discussion: The Rufe and Float Fighters (8/6/2008 7:12:15 PM)

A recent thread about Seaplane Tenders and Scout Cruisers has prompted me to do some looking into the Rufe. I'd like to start a thread on best practices for the use of the Rufe. This includes tactics, performance discussion, production discussion. My thought is, is this plane an oft overlooked gem, or really just the ugly step child it seems to be treated like.

I would like to suggest that to be a "best practice" for a witp game that a tactic should be feasible, given the technology of the time, i.e. it does not exploit mechanics of the game. However, a tactic need not have been standard procedure to be considered.

It was the only fighter/interceptor of the war to actually see action as a float plane. The internet research I have done suggests that it was not a weapon system that could be ignored by the Allies, at least not until they had total control of the skies anyway. Rufes were used in the Solomons and Aleutians, with varying degrees of success. Japan of course created the fighter to be used in areas where developing air fields was considered impractical - whereas the US had the philosophy of "we don't care if it's impractical we'll through as many engineers at it as it takes to achieve the impractical."

So immediate questions:
1. Is it practical to use the Rufe at forward bases where airfields are non-existent.
2. Does boosting Rufe production help?
3. There has been mention of putting Rufes on Seaplane tenders. Would this have bee realistically possible? WOuld it be desirable
4. Where is the Rufe best used?



scott64 -> RE: Best Practices Discussion: The Rufe and Float Fighters (8/6/2008 7:18:43 PM)

I halt or replace their production, because I feel they do not do anything but get shot down later. [8|]



Dili -> RE: Best Practices Discussion: The Rufe and Float Fighters (8/6/2008 7:35:24 PM)

I can only see them to be relevant as a cover for a TF that doesnt have a carrier.



Q-Ball -> RE: Best Practices Discussion: The Rufe and Float Fighters (8/6/2008 7:49:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005
So immediate questions:
1. Is it practical to use the Rufe at forward bases where airfields are non-existent.
2. Does boosting Rufe production help?
3. There has been mention of putting Rufes on Seaplane tenders. Would this have bee realistically possible? WOuld it be desirable
4. Where is the Rufe best used?


As Japan you have to figure out a use for everything, so this is a legitimate question. Some answers to those 4:
1. They are the only fighters that can do that, but then again, if the AF size is 0, what are you really protecting anyway? You can't bomb a size-0 airbase.
2. No, waste of resources. You can't expand beyond the 4 Chutai you get, 36 total planes
3. TENDERS: I think it's realistic, after all they are smaller than a Jake, and I think this is the best use. I use the CS units paired with KB, one FP unit on Nav Search, and the Rufes just give you a little more CAP.
4. CS UNITS, though I think they take less damage than LBA from Airbase attacks, so I did use them with some success at an Airbase that was occasionally bombed. Another use some have used is to put them on a YAMATO-class ship.

Overall, I find them of limited use. They aren't good fighters. Best use to me is as extra CAP with KB.



Coach Z -> RE: Best Practices Discussion: The Rufe and Float Fighters (8/6/2008 9:17:52 PM)

I use them to provide CAP over a base right after capture or place a CS in the Transport TF to give it a small but self-sufficient CAP...just in case your base gets "CLOUDED" over and your LRCAP doesnt fly.

The RUFES will do a number versus unescorted Allied Bombers (Non-4E) and can hold their own against many of the early Allied fighters due to the Experience advantage. Now I wouldn't expect them to defeat an equal # of F4F's or the P-40s (especially from the AVG) but they can hang with Wirraways, P-36's, Buffalo's, and even P-39's.



Local Yokel -> RE: Best Practices Discussion: The Rufe and Float Fighters (8/6/2008 9:49:26 PM)

Adopting your numbering:

1) Yes, particularly if you adopt the philosophy of "I'm not going to build airfields for the Allies to capture and use against me."
2) I would build just enough to cover the groups you will receive plus a few replacements. You could consider a longer production run of the Kyofu (N1K) so that you have an upgrade path for your Reisen-derivative float fighters.
3) Sakaida's work on IJN aces (pub. Osprey) has a nice shot of a Suisen chutai embarked in Kimikawa Maru. The caption says that the ship was en route from Yokusuka to Shortlands, so this may simply have been a convenient means of shipping the aircraft. OTOH, why perform an engine run-up (as one of them is) unless you're actully operating the aircraft from the vessel?
4) See (1).

Obviously the Suisen suffers from a performance disadvantage relative to its land-based equivalent, but my Attu-based chutai has performed creditably against twin engined bombers out of Adak, even since P-38's began to escort them. A certain Petty Officer 1st Class Maki, R has demonstrated a clear aptitude for this model, with a score of 5 kills to date. I keep an eye on his accomplishments, whilst never doubting that his appointment at Yasakuni can't be long delayed.



JeffroK -> RE: Best Practices Discussion: The Rufe and Float Fighters (8/7/2008 2:26:45 AM)

So immediate questions:
1. Is it practical to use the Rufe at forward bases where airfields are non-existent.
2. Does boosting Rufe production help?
3. There has been mention of putting Rufes on Seaplane tenders. Would this have bee realistically possible? WOuld it be desirable
4. Where is the Rufe best used?


IMVHO

1. Yes, the japanese engineers are so slow at building up bases this would provide some local CAP.
2. I would only build enough to provide a reserve for the 3-4 chutai mentioned.
3. I havent used this tactic
4. In the Aleutians, Gilberts, Solomons, Andamans. Only unitl LBA can fly in.




FeurerKrieg -> RE: Best Practices Discussion: The Rufe and Float Fighters (8/7/2008 5:42:25 AM)

I've had success with Rufe's in games where I used them for rear area coverage to supplement Army fighter CAP. The 20mm guns on the Rufe do a better job at bringing down unescorted 4E bombers than those small army plane MG's.



niceguy2005 -> RE: Best Practices Discussion: The Rufe and Float Fighters (8/7/2008 5:53:54 PM)

So summarizing to date...

The Rufe, in game is a useful plane.  It seems it's primary limitation is not performance, but rather lack of deployable units.  It is not, as we all recognize, a premier fighter.  It can however perform the traditional role of a fighter with some success, i.e. it can be used for both CAP and interception.

Although not common place, it would not be considered gamey to put the Rufe on an AV or CS to provide additional CAP.

So a couple more questions come to mind....

5. While the Rufe is an adequate fighter in the early stages of the war, when does it become obsolete?
6. Would the Rufe make a reasonable PT buster?  What about using it as a fighter/bomber?



Q-Ball -> RE: Best Practices Discussion: The Rufe and Float Fighters (8/7/2008 6:08:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

5. While the Rufe is an adequate fighter in the early stages of the war, when does it become obsolete?
6. Would the Rufe make a reasonable PT buster?  What about using it as a fighter/bomber?



5. It will get slaughtered by P-38s and up. I would only base it somewhere you are likely to see unescorted bombers, because it does have cannon, and can shoot those down
6. NO, it carries no bombs at all. Probably something to do with wing-mounted 60kg bombs the Zero carried, and floats not being a good combination.



Dili -> RE: Best Practices Discussion: The Rufe and Float Fighters (8/7/2008 6:42:54 PM)

My problem with putting them in CS and Cruisers is if it's structure(Zero was rather fragile) sustained consecutive catapult G level acceleration.



JeffroK -> RE: Best Practices Discussion: The Rufe and Float Fighters (8/8/2008 8:01:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

My problem with putting them in CS and Cruisers is if it's structure(Zero was rather fragile) sustained consecutive catapult G level acceleration.


I dont take too much notice of float planes, but wouldnt they have a pretty high op loss rate?
Plus, it would be about 100% if their ship was involved in combat, you see regular comment of them being thrown overboard to avoid them causing damage to thier ship.



Anthropoid -> RE: Best Practices Discussion: The Rufe and Float Fighters (8/8/2008 5:46:35 PM)

quote:

3. There has been mention of putting Rufes on Seaplane tenders. Would this have bee realistically possible? WOuld it be desirable


Sea plane tenders = the AV, AVD line of ships right?

My understanding was that these boost the av support at a base, allowing seaplanes to operate there. Your use of the phrase "putting them on Seaplane tenders" suggests to me something more like "LOADING" them as active weapon systems on an AV similar to loading carrier aircraft onto CVs.

Am I just misunderstanding, or is somehow possible to "load" float planes onto AV ships and base them off of TFs outside of bases?



Dili -> RE: Best Practices Discussion: The Rufe and Float Fighters (8/8/2008 5:53:48 PM)

Yes, but i was more thinking of catastrophic failure, or floats not be made to launched from catapult.
Yes that is a gripe i have with floatplanes in WITP. They dont have the cons that made them not shine when auxiliary carriers and even land based planes improved.



niceguy2005 -> RE: Best Practices Discussion: The Rufe and Float Fighters (8/8/2008 6:49:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

quote:

3. There has been mention of putting Rufes on Seaplane tenders. Would this have bee realistically possible? WOuld it be desirable


Sea plane tenders = the AV, AVD line of ships right?

My understanding was that these boost the av support at a base, allowing seaplanes to operate there. Your use of the phrase "putting them on Seaplane tenders" suggests to me something more like "LOADING" them as active weapon systems on an AV similar to loading carrier aircraft onto CVs.

Am I just misunderstanding, or is somehow possible to "load" float planes onto AV ships and base them off of TFs outside of bases?

Anthropoid, yes, IJN AV carry seaplanes on board and can operate them from a base or while at sea. I have two right now patrolling off Formosa spotting subs for my ASW groups. They carry about 10 total planes.

They also boost float plane support when docked at a base, just like US AV.

The IJN does not have AVDs.



Q-Ball -> RE: Best Practices Discussion: The Rufe and Float Fighters (8/8/2008 7:57:42 PM)

AVs could be a whole different best practices thread, because the IJN gets 5 AVs that have integrated air units.  They are interesting ships.  As Japan, I have found almost no use for the AVs without AC capacity, and don't build any.



Anthropoid -> RE: Best Practices Discussion: The Rufe and Float Fighters (8/8/2008 8:13:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

quote:

3. There has been mention of putting Rufes on Seaplane tenders. Would this have bee realistically possible? WOuld it be desirable


Sea plane tenders = the AV, AVD line of ships right?

My understanding was that these boost the av support at a base, allowing seaplanes to operate there. Your use of the phrase "putting them on Seaplane tenders" suggests to me something more like "LOADING" them as active weapon systems on an AV similar to loading carrier aircraft onto CVs.

Am I just misunderstanding, or is somehow possible to "load" float planes onto AV ships and base them off of TFs outside of bases?

Anthropoid, yes, IJN AV carry seaplanes on board and can operate them from a base or while at sea. I have two right now patrolling off Formosa spotting subs for my ASW groups. They carry about 10 total planes.

They also boost float plane support when docked at a base, just like US AV.

The IJN does not have AVDs.


No foolin.'

So technically, there should be TWO distinct types of "Aviation Auxiliary ships." AV or whatever for the U.S. ships that cannot handle sea-based tendering of seaplanes (meaning they don't carry the FPs around and act like aircraft carriers) and some other designation for the Japanese variety: AVC or something like that?

I'm guessing that this is in line with reality eh, that the IJN had these actual mobile AV carriers, but the U.S. did not?



Dili -> RE: Best Practices Discussion: The Rufe and Float Fighters (8/8/2008 10:25:39 PM)

In IJN you have AV's that with a crane they put the float plane in the water and it flies from there. CS's with 2 catapults in Nisshin or 4 in Mizuho and Chitose could send planes without stopping.



Kull -> RE: Best Practices Discussion: The Rufe and Float Fighters (8/9/2008 1:10:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

AVs could be a whole different best practices thread, because the IJN gets 5 AVs that have integrated air units.  They are interesting ships.  As Japan, I have found almost no use for the AVs without AC capacity, and don't build any.


At the risk of diverting the flow of the thread, that's not completely true. Converting merchantmen to AVs results in a "capacity-1" ship, which arrives without the "1". However, you can populate them with Glen's rescued from sinking subs or by yanking a spare float unit off a cruiser. The net effect isn't that impressive since all you have is one float plane, and thus the AV's "at sea" search & ASW capability is pretty limited. But it IS an option.



niceguy2005 -> RE: Best Practices Discussion: The Rufe and Float Fighters (8/9/2008 1:12:09 AM)

I agree an AV best practices thread could easily be an offshoot of this one.  I have been finding the AV to be quite useful.  I am sending them out ahead of my invasion forces to have a peek around.  I move them in at night.  Let them fly a mission the next day, usually naval search and then move them back out again the next night.  It really limits their exposure to enemy LBA, of course they are hardly immune.  To use that tactic you need to be really carelful where they get sent. 

The CS I am sending with my surface fleets.  They give the BBs much better eyes.



Q-Ball -> RE: Best Practices Discussion: The Rufe and Float Fighters (8/9/2008 2:46:25 AM)

The Akitsushimas would be cooler if we could actually launch an Emily from it.....

[image]local://upfiles/6931/3F754D73728B496588C44ACC744B4E2D.gif[/image]



niceguy2005 -> RE: Best Practices Discussion: The Rufe and Float Fighters (8/9/2008 5:20:30 AM)

Thanks for the pic...very cool.

I would sort of wonder what would be the point.  An Emily has such range anyway



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.921875