RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

witpqs -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (10/6/2009 7:51:14 PM)

In Dec '43 a ship arrives as:

xAP Golden Gate (C2 USAT Class 2/1942)

The designation "C2 USAT" makes me wonder if the "xAP" is correct or should it be either "AP" or "APA"?



JWE -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (10/6/2009 8:10:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
In Dec '43 a ship arrives as:
xAP Golden Gate (C2 USAT Class 2/1942)
The designation "C2 USAT" makes me wonder if the "xAP" is correct or should it be either "AP" or "APA"?

USAT ships were very little better than Turkish slave galleys. They were commercial boats the USAT chartered (voyage or bare boat) and were under Army control. They had no boats, no LCs, no cranes, and couldn't assault if their life depended on it. They were nothing but chartered hulls, with a ton of flimsy bunks, and an extra 50 feet of tin urinal troughs. They were "slave" ships in every sense of the word.

Game has some USAT boats that are designated xAP, instead of xAK. This is the game's way of giving the Allies some troop capacity to make up for the Jap's ability to do the -t (xAK carry troops) conversion. It's basically the same thing, except USAT slave ships don't assault, unless you are really, really suicidal.



witpqs -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (10/6/2009 8:24:36 PM)

Thanks. I was suckered by the 'USAT' figuring 'AT' stood for Attack Transport or something like it.

I guess people have been slapping lipstick on pigs for quite some time! [:D]



Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (10/6/2009 11:38:54 PM)


USAT = U S Army Transport. Technically only those ships fitted for carriage of troops should have this designation, but it is frequently used for any ship chartered or owned by the Army.

Note that these were merchant ships, with merchant crews. As JWE said.

Some were owned by the Army, others owned by the shipping board and operated by the army. Many were either time or voyage chartered. But just regular old liners and freighters. US Merchant Marine crews with some army personnel for communications, security, and maybe light AA gun crews. Even the ships that went into dangerous waters (like Dona Nati, Don Jose and Anhui) had merchant crews.

One of the things that the Army complains about to this day was the decision in the first couple of months of the war to transfer many of the best ships to Navy control. This was because the Navy would man them with military crews and to Naval manning levels - with enough folks for damage control parites, two-watch gun crews, etc.



witpqs -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (10/7/2009 12:58:35 AM)

So why the complaints about better manning, etc.?



Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (10/7/2009 1:52:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

So why the complaints about better manning, etc.?


Sorry, don't understand the question.



witpqs -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (10/7/2009 2:00:52 AM)

Sorry - I meant why the Army complaints. It seems like when they turned some of them over to Navy control they got manning of those ships - any they complain to this day about it?



Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (10/7/2009 2:43:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Sorry - I meant why the Army complaints. It seems like when they turned some of them over to Navy control they got manning of those ships - any they complain to this day about it?


Because they lost operational control of the ships. They wanted to use them for Army requirements but once they ships belonged to the Navy, the Navy set the priorities.




sven6345789 -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (10/7/2009 6:00:17 AM)

The japanese submarine I-8 is classified as an A1 type sub;
IRL it was an J3 type sub (like I-7)
this is in scenario 1, patch 1.084



Montbrun -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (10/7/2009 7:59:56 PM)

Campaign Game - there are 2x TK L.P. St. Clairs:




Halsey -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (10/7/2009 11:03:47 PM)

Campaign 1 scenario...

ARD AFBD-2
Too large to traverse river hexsides at Portland.

Bummer...
Makes this asset useless.[:D]



JWE -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (10/8/2009 1:46:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey
Campaign 1 scenario...

ARD AFBD-2
Too large to traverse river hexsides at Portland.

Bummer...
Makes this asset useless.[:D]

yeah, well, fifth break, fifth answer, patch-2, gonna be at Seattle. happy days.



Halsey -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (10/8/2009 9:49:58 PM)

Sorry, must've missed it's past posting on one of the past 28 pages of posts.

Ciao!



JWE -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (10/9/2009 8:22:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey
Sorry, must've missed it's past posting on one of the past 28 pages of posts.

Ciao!

28 pages?? Shoot, I can do 28 pages of 'Second Stage lensman' in 6.4 minutes [;)]

Yeah, we're getting there. Maybe some surprises (AEaster Eggs) coming in patch-2 (we should be so lucky). Happy days.



Sardaukar -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (10/12/2009 9:57:00 AM)

Minor data error maybe? Scenario 2. French KV with quite nice endurance. Ship has more fuel than tonnage...[:D]



[image]local://upfiles/4867/E9BDEFA4E75D4424923560C7F0B208E1.jpg[/image]



Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (10/12/2009 3:01:58 PM)

Why it's corvette instead of minesweeper???

Range sounds right, according to http://www.warshipsww2.eu/lode.php?language=E&period=&idtrida=752



Gilbert -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (10/12/2009 3:39:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Why it's corvette instead of minesweeper???

Range sounds right, according to http://www.warshipsww2.eu/lode.php?language=E&period=&idtrida=752


Because some still used after 1940 were converted to ASW and given DCT.

Regards
Gilbert



witpqs -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (10/12/2009 3:45:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Minor data error maybe? Scenario 2. French KV with quite nice endurance. Ship has more fuel than tonnage...[:D]



Look closely at the picture - it's towing a trailer! [:D]



JWE -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (10/12/2009 5:18:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
Minor data error maybe? Scenario 2. French KV with quite nice endurance. Ship has more fuel than tonnage...[:D]

Yes, typo. Cut and paste artifact. Fixed for patch-2.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos
Why it's corvette instead of minesweeper???
Range sounds right, according to http://www.warshipsww2.eu/lode.php?language=E&period=&idtrida=752

Class begins as a minesweeper but gets a DC suite and switches to a corvette in Feb. ’43.

10,000 nm range is only valid at 9 kts which is far too puny a cruise speed for game use. Tech specs show about 5800 nm at 14 kts on 110 tons of diesel. Some say about 4800 nm on 92 tons. Slight differences in serial construction for Elan and Chamois classes make specific determination difficult.



TommyG -> RE: Sub troop loading question (10/12/2009 7:14:58 PM)

How do you load remnents onto subs? I have lots of beat up little units on beach hexes in combat mode with Gato class subs in transport mode, but the subs will not load. Strat mode is greyed out for the units and when I try to load I get a "not in combat mode" message even though they are in combat mode and not in a restricted Hq. The units I want to load are banged up but are not disrupted, and I am only trying to load one sub at a time. If this has been answered a dozen times, I'm happy with a link




Don Bowen -> RE: Sub troop loading question (10/12/2009 7:33:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TommyG

How do you load remnents onto subs? I have lots of beat up little units on beach hexes in combat mode with Gato class subs in transport mode, but the subs will not load. Strat mode is greyed out for the units and when I try to load I get a "not in combat mode" message even though they are in combat mode and not in a restricted Hq. The units I want to load are banged up but are not disrupted, and I am only trying to load one sub at a time. If this has been answered a dozen times, I'm happy with a link




The ability to load units onto subs has been severly reduced. Based on port size and air superiority you might well only be able to load one sub at a time.

This was done to prevent wholesale movement of units by submarines.



fbs -> RE: Sub troop loading question (10/12/2009 8:24:43 PM)


Scenario 001, 1.0.1.1084.

SS S-18 on San Diego is assigned to China Command rather than Pacific Fleet.

Thanks [:D]
fbs



R8J -> very small error? (10/12/2009 8:56:42 PM)

Slot 1730, Yamato:

Wpn 11, 1683: Num=2, Turrets=2, Right Side
Wpd 13, 1683: Num=2, Turrets=1, Left Side



TommyG -> RE: Sub troop loading question (10/13/2009 6:22:41 PM)

I'm trying to load them one at a time. No go. Can't change the units to strategic (greyed out) and the message when I try to load says "not in combat mode", but they are in combat mode. Is there a discussion somewhere on what's left of troop loading on subs? I'm not trying to offload the 4th Marines here. I'm just trying to pick up a few straggling Lark bn boys who are lost on the beach. They are not on a dot base, would that help?



Don Bowen -> RE: Sub troop loading question (10/13/2009 7:20:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TommyG

I'm trying to load them one at a time. No go. Can't change the units to strategic (greyed out) and the message when I try to load says "not in combat mode", but they are in combat mode. Is there a discussion somewhere on what's left of troop loading on subs? I'm not trying to offload the 4th Marines here. I'm just trying to pick up a few straggling Lark bn boys who are lost on the beach. They are not on a dot base, would that help?


Actually I am not sure about the ability to load if not at a beach. Whole thing was shut down hard and ability is based on port size. No port might mean no load ability.

Really, the decision was to make it a living bitch to move troops by subs.



witpqs -> RE: Sub troop loading question (10/13/2009 7:50:56 PM)

I think I remember it being posted that the sub must be at a port to load... but that's strictly "IIRC".



John Lansford -> RE: Sub troop loading question (10/13/2009 8:14:40 PM)

Yeah, if you don't have a level 1 port at least to load those remnants on a sub, you are SOL.  Even then it's kind of random as to how often and which units will load and which ones won't; I evacuated most of the Cebu BF out by xAKL, but some remnants were left and I evac'ed them via sub in 1/42.  After a few subs loaded there, though, I couldn't load the rest; not until 4/42 did I start getting some subs to accept the pitiful few support squads that were left there.

I've still got a British BF at Brunei that I cannot load by sub, even though it's only 4-5 support and aviation support squads left there.  For some reason the AI hasn't bothered to take the base either, even though they've taken every other base on Borneo.



Bradley7735 -> RE: Sub troop loading question (10/14/2009 2:39:46 PM)

8" British (and Australian) gun has a penetration of 180. Most 6" guns have a penetration of 200. Most 8" guns have a penetration of 275. This means the Brit gun can not penetrate most other CA armor, even at 1,000 yards. I'm not sure if the penetration is accurate. I've tried to find information on it, but I don't have the resources.



JWE -> RE: Sub troop loading question (10/14/2009 11:40:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
This means the Brit gun can not penetrate most other CA armor, even at 1,000 yards.

Hyperbolic vaporizations are counter productive.
Your statement is in error.
The largest Jap CA armor thickness in the database is 140mm for the Mogami belt. The others are around 100. One of the math classes I took suggests that 180 is bigger than 100 and even bigger than 140.
quote:

I'm not sure if the penetration is accurate.

And neither is anyone else. All sources indicate the major loadout of Brit 8" guns was SAPC. All US sources indicate SAPC had penetration characteristics somewhere in the neighborhood of 60-70% that of an equivalent APC/APCBC round.

You find better balistics and penetration data for UK SAPC rounds, you will win a prize.



pad152 -> RE: Sub troop loading question (10/15/2009 1:40:25 AM)

Campaign 2

Ship (2797) Hie Maru - the ship has both an upgrade (AP) and conversion (AS) but, the upgrade only shows the AS conversion?








Page: <<   < prev  24 25 [26] 27 28   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.0625