2 quick questions...... (Full Version)

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



Message

undercovergeek -> 2 quick questions...... (2/5/2009 2:05:11 PM)

1. should i change my army based zeros from a6m2 to a6m3 - i notice they have far less durability? (stock 42a campaign)

2. im trying to build forts up in the sopac as ijn as quick as possible on my key islands - which is best to use, base forces, special base forces, the small ijn/ijaaf base forces, engineer regiments, or the little construction engineer squads?

thanks in advance



Mike Solli -> RE: 2 quick questions...... (2/5/2009 2:43:38 PM)

1. If you don't like the A6M3, build about 60 of them (enough for 2 daitai) and keep them in the pool for your reinforcement daitai.  When they arrive, convert them to something else so you have the M3s available for more reinforcements.

2. Use everything available that has engineers.  I try to load up the engineers on a base (prioritize your bases) and then move the engineer mob from base to base.  This "mob" is usually const bns and an engineer reg if available.  200 engineers is what I shoot for.



herwin -> RE: 2 quick questions...... (2/5/2009 2:52:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek

1. should i change my army based zeros from a6m2 to a6m3 - i notice they have far less durability? (stock 42a campaign)

2. im trying to build forts up in the sopac as ijn as quick as possible on my key islands - which is best to use, base forces, special base forces, the small ijn/ijaaf base forces, engineer regiments, or the little construction engineer squads?

thanks in advance


In RHS, I use the A6M2s for G3M and G4M escort and the A6M3s for CV airgroups.



Mike Solli -> RE: 2 quick questions...... (2/5/2009 3:06:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek

1. should i change my army based zeros from a6m2 to a6m3 - i notice they have far less durability? (stock 42a campaign)

2. im trying to build forts up in the sopac as ijn as quick as possible on my key islands - which is best to use, base forces, special base forces, the small ijn/ijaaf base forces, engineer regiments, or the little construction engineer squads?

thanks in advance


In RHS, I use the A6M2s for G3M and G4M escort and the A6M3s for CV airgroups.


Isn't that gamey for the A6M3s? They never were carrier aircraft.



herwin -> RE: 2 quick questions...... (2/5/2009 3:25:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek

1. should i change my army based zeros from a6m2 to a6m3 - i notice they have far less durability? (stock 42a campaign)

2. im trying to build forts up in the sopac as ijn as quick as possible on my key islands - which is best to use, base forces, special base forces, the small ijn/ijaaf base forces, engineer regiments, or the little construction engineer squads?

thanks in advance


In RHS, I use the A6M2s for G3M and G4M escort and the A6M3s for CV airgroups.


Isn't that gamey for the A6M3s? They never were carrier aircraft.



You've caught me by surprise. They were designed for carrier ops. I find I don't need the extended range in the carrier AGs, and definitely do for LBA ops.



Mike Solli -> RE: 2 quick questions...... (2/5/2009 3:37:41 PM)

I agree with you concerning range, but wasn't the carrier version the A6M3a?



herwin -> RE: 2 quick questions...... (2/5/2009 3:52:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I agree with you concerning range, but wasn't the carrier version the A6M3a?


I assume you're referring to the A6M3-22. It addressed the range deficiencies of the A6M3-32 by bringing back the folding wing-tips and increasing the fuel stowage (which had decreased when the engine had to be repositioned to maintain the position of the CG). The -32 model was designed for carrier use, but only 343 were built.



flaggelant -> RE: 2 quick questions...... (2/5/2009 5:28:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
2. Use everything available that has engineers.  I try to load up the engineers on a base (prioritize your bases) and then move the engineer mob from base to base.  This "mob" is usually const bns and an engineer reg if available.  200 engineers is what I shoot for.


mobbing sounds like a good plan, but i'd understood that engeneer regiments were "fighting engeneers" mostly used for
degrading fortresses during assaults

don't have anyting to back that up, but thats waht i heard?



Barb -> RE: 2 quick questions...... (2/5/2009 6:27:53 PM)

Combat engineer also help in construction if enough support squads are present and they are not involved in something else (combat). I think there is something like this in the manual...



Local Yokel -> RE: 2 quick questions...... (2/5/2009 7:11:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I agree with you concerning range, but wasn't the carrier version the A6M3a?


I assume you're referring to the A6M3-22. It addressed the range deficiencies of the A6M3-32 by bringing back the folding wing-tips and increasing the fuel stowage (which had decreased when the engine had to be repositioned to maintain the position of the CG). The -32 model was designed for carrier use, but only 343 were built.


Moreover there is film footage taken aboard Zuikaku at Santa Cruz that clearly shows the clipped wingtip of a Model 32 Zero departing the pointy end of the ship. The caption to the still from this footage that I have suggests that only a proportion of Zuikaku's Kansen-tai was so equipped, the balance no doubt consisting of Model 21's (A6M2). Therefore I have no reason to doubt that Model 32's were not only equipped for but actually functioned as carrier fighters, albeit only for a short period pending introduction of the Model 22 ("A6M3a").

I have seen another picture apparently taken aboard Sho. or Zui. at Santa Cruz which purports to show another Model 32, but frankly I'm not convinced that it is, since I can't discern the (supercharger?) intake above the spinner. Pictures of Model 32's in carrier use are admittedly rare.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.078125