(Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific

Message

Mark W Carver -> (6/24/2002 7:47:30 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Michael Chan My SC exp is upto 88 and I have sen many superor IJN subs that I have in my fleet , I have sent many inferior navel vessals to the watery grave of the ocean, so you can see the training has nothing to do with it, it is the superor JAPENESE vessals just like during all the conflicts of the world wars. [/QUOTE] WOW! :eek: I shouldn't be doing this, but.... one word. ==== M I D W A Y ==== :p

rhohltjr -> superior build and technology??? (6/24/2002 10:22:33 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Michael Chan [B]I .... jap subs are superor in build and technology [/B][/QUOTE] Michael, for this UV game Japanese, British, US, Jamaican... submarines all designed and build by Matrix and 2x3 team w/Grigsby san. :rolleyes: Welcome to the forum! :D

FAdmiral -> (6/25/2002 2:13:00 AM)
The submarines in UV are not that very different from each other in terms of individual construction. Now in SH2, I have commanded all types, German, Dutch, British, Japanese and American. The U-Boats are far superior with the American Fleet boats coming in second. The Brits are OK but the Dutch and Japanese subs are large and very slow to react. And against the Japanese Naval fleets, I can torp & evade them with ease. But in UV, they seem to have the edge but I made up for that with my last turn. It was early June 1942 and the Japanese AI was mounting a major offensive against Port Moresby. My PBY's saw them coming and setting up in Gili-Gili to invade PM. I had plenty of LBA there, mines surrounding the harbour and subs covering the main routes. My carriers were at Noumea refueling so they were out of the picture. The bombardment force came at night BUT (shades of Midway) 2 BBs and 1 DD hit Mk. 16 mines. As they were retiring the next day (never did bombard) my LBA gave them a horrific pasting. And as they retired through the channel, my subs nailed another DD and CA. I only lost 1 "S" class sub and a few aircraft. Port Moresby WAS SAVED. With the back of the Japanese fleet broken, they limped back to Rabaul. Now that turn I will definately save and keep for prosperity. All of this was made possible with the 1.11 patch which keeps the battle more on an even keel. GREAT GOING guys from Matrix and 2by3 !!!!! JIM BERG, SR.

Ron Saueracker -> Uh Ohhhh... (6/25/2002 2:44:22 AM)
Well. Been doing lots of research for ship data base and guess what? Another mine warfare problem. For those of us who look upon the Argonaut as the only decent offesive mine capability platform for the allies, we should mourn it's demise as such. The Argonaut was converted from a minelayer into strictly a transport submarine in early 1942, losing it's mine ops capability. Oh well... :rolleyes:

Raverdave -> (6/25/2002 5:12:06 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Michael Chan [B]This is not my first post RAVERDAVE I have many posts..... My SC exp is upto 88 and I have sen many superor IJN subs that I have in my fleet , I have sent many inferior navel vessals to the watery grave of the ocean, so you can see the training has nothing to do with it, it is the superor JAPENESE vessals just like during all the conflicts of the world wars. [/B][/QUOTE] Un huh.......guess thats why Japan won the war :rolleyes: Well there is only one way to shut you up...........how about we have a PBEM?

Michael Chan -> (6/25/2002 9:46:25 AM)
Yes we do have a PBM , you need to accecpt tat even though Japan we unsuccessful during the war our MACHINES was far superor than AUSTRALIAN, BRITISH, AND YANKYS. Our engieers were far superor, because of there training and way of life and I think this is showing in the game and in your reply's. We (japenese) are always at the forfront of technology and are always striving for perfection. What is learned in the cradle lasts to the grave. What you give is what you get. - Telagu (1821-1878)

Jagger2002 -> (6/25/2002 10:19:12 AM)
I think there are two good solutions to very strong subs. One is to use the IJN sub realism rule. Prevents IJN subs from wiping out US invasions by massing on the location. Doesn't prevent the US subs from doing the same to IJN invasions. Nor does it prevent the US from parking in Rabaul or Truk. A very good alternative which I have used with most of my PBEM partners was an agreement not to place subs directly on enemy bases or invasion sites. They can be directly adjacent-just not directly on the site. I really like this agreement because the IJN is allowed to use their subs a little more agressively by going after transports. And neither side can park at a harbor or invasion site and just start torpedoing everything in sight. Typically subs will get one shot at passing covoys. So they are still a factor but they are incapable of the turkey shoots by parking in locations where typically there are massive numbers of stationary targets.

bradfordkay -> (6/25/2002 10:55:14 AM)
In my games so far (all solo against the Japanese AI) I have used the Historical Japanese Sub Doctrine option and have mostly kept my subs on the convoy approaches. Well, except for the last game where they were invading Gili Gili. I just had to send a couple of subs into Milne Bay (I figured from what charts of the area I have seen that it isn't a completely suicidal attack - I'd love to see the admiralty charts of the area) to hit the supply ships. I do like to send out 4 sub mining TFs to mine the passages between the islands. Typically a transport will hit one and then the Japanese minesweepers will come out to clear it away. A few weeks later, I send in a new batch...

rhohltjr -> Go Team!!! (6/25/2002 7:33:31 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Michael Chan [B]Yes we do have a PBM ,... [/B][/QUOTE] One of you (or both!!!), please post an AAR. hee hee,.. running to get the pop corn.

FAdmiral -> (6/25/2002 11:09:39 PM)
Maybe Michael doesn't really know what PBEM actually means, Play-by-E-Mail game. Riverdale would like to play Michael by this method. And no Michael, it is not the name of a ship or aircraft !!! JIM BERG, SR.

rhohltjr -> Maybe off topic for UV subs but,... (6/26/2002 1:17:17 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by FAdmiral [B]... Now in SH2, I have commanded all types, German, Dutch, British, Japanese and American. The U-Boats are far superior with the American Fleet boats coming in second. The Brits are OK but the Dutch and Japanese subs are large and very slow to react. ... JIM BERG, SR. [/B][/QUOTE] FAdmiral, I was under the impression that SH2 was exclusively Atlantic / U-Boats. Are you really able to command all these different subs in SH2. Can't imagine MOD guys have been that busy! I guess the Brits, Dutch and Japanese had better sub torps->(Bureau Ord~BOHICA) than USA did early on. thx, Robert Hohlt, Jr.

FAdmiral -> (6/26/2002 3:07:30 AM)
Robert, Actually both DC and SH2 shipped using the full map (long & lat) of the planet so scenarios can be created anywhere on the globe. Sub modding has been done by mainly one guy and he has got some of them to work OK SH2 did not ship with any Japanese models so you have to import them from DC. Many a time I have seen a battle on UV that I thought "what if I were in command of that sub" so I just recreated the battle on SH2 in the same L & L position to see if I was a better captain of the sub that the UV AL captain was. I ALWAYS do much better, hitting ships mostly every time and evading the DDs rather easily. Jap DDs always tended to drop DCs very shallow. Of course, if I am in shallow water, it's quite a bit tougher to evade. JIM BERG, SR. PS. Wouldn't it be SWEET if one game did this all for you.....WOW ! WITP, DC and SH2 as 1 complete game.....AWSUM !!!!!!!!!

1089 -> (6/26/2002 5:07:45 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by FAdmiral [B]Maybe Michael doesn't really know what PBEM actually means, Play-by-E-Mail game. Riverdale would like to play Michael by this method. And no Michael, it is not the name of a ship or aircraft !!! JIM BERG, SR. [/B][/QUOTE] The way I read it was that Michael was already playing a PBEM with Raverdave, and had posted many times before, under his real name. What person named Chan (a Chinese name) is going to rave about Japanese superiority? kp

Raverdave -> (6/26/2002 5:08:54 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Michael Chan [B]Yes we do have a PBM , you need to accecpt tat even though Japan we unsuccessful during the war our MACHINES was far superor than AUSTRALIAN, BRITISH, AND YANKYS. Our engieers were far superor, because of there training and way of life and I think this is showing in the game and in your reply's. We (japenese) are always at the forfront of technology and are always striving for perfection. What is learned in the cradle lasts to the grave. What you give is what you get. - Telagu (1821-1878) [/B][/QUOTE] Yeah right, whatever, but just remember this....it was AUSSIE troops that FIRST stopped the Japanese, and it was in a small place called kokoda track......I also recall seeing a submarine on display at the Australian War Memorial........one of the three that attacked Sydney and sank a passenger ferry. Two were sunk and one decided to commit themselfs to what ever gods they prayed too. "Superor" training and technolgy huh?

Michael Chan -> (6/26/2002 9:01:05 AM)
I seem to remember it was the kokoda TRAIL and you want to talk about technology ask your so called historians about the aircarft used during WW2 , my understanding they were built on early prototype japanese zeros. And yes I know my surname is Chinese but my father was Chinese and mother Japanese and they met during the war so please don't attack my nationality. I also know what PBEM means as I am in the middle of a email game with a British historian from Cambridge, I just wanted to be a smarting pants. Dead men don't bite. - Plutarch (46-120)

Raverdave -> (6/26/2002 9:19:46 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Michael Chan [B]I seem to remember it was the kokoda TRAIL and you want to talk about technology ask your so called historians about the aircarft used during WW2 , my understanding they were built on early prototype japanese zeros. And yes I know my surname is Chinese but my father was Chinese and mother Japanese and they met during the war so please don't attack my nationality. I also know what PBEM means as I am in the middle of a email game with a British historian from Cambridge, I just wanted to be a smarting pants. Dead men don't bite. - Plutarch (46-120) [/B][/QUOTE] Yes it WAS called the Kokoda trail by an AMERICAN reporter, but the term "Trail" is an american one where as "Track" is an Aussie term, here in Australia it is called the Kokoda Track. Interesting point that you raise about the Zeros.....could you please supply the details and which alllied aircraft were based on the design of the zero? Facts please. Last point...I have not yet attacked your nationality......your arrogance however is anothere issue.

1089 -> (6/26/2002 9:26:58 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Michael Chan [B]I seem to remember it was the kokoda TRAIL and you want to talk about technology ask your so called historians about the aircarft used during WW2 , my understanding they were built on early prototype japanese zeros. And yes I know my surname is Chinese but my father was Chinese and mother Japanese and they met during the war so please don't attack my nationality. I also know what PBEM means as I am in the middle of a email game with a British historian from Cambridge, I just wanted to be a smarting pants. Dead men don't bite. - Plutarch (46-120) [/B][/QUOTE] I wasn't attcking your nationality. I thought it illogical that a man with a Chinese name would be spouting Japanese propaganda, that's all. kp

rhohltjr -> Where have all the Submarines gone? Gone back to reload everyone. (6/27/2002 1:02:48 AM)
[QUOTE]... please don't attack my nationality. [/B][/QUOTE] Michael, that just dosen't go on, on these forums. We have all seen some rather intense arguments here but nationality bashing has never been an issue. I doubt it would be tolerated. BTW I have heard Kokoda Track / Trail before. Seems the same to me. If not, I am certainly open to learn new things. Finally, I too would like to find out your sources for stating allied aircraft were built from early prototype zeros.:)

Don Bowen -> Kokoda Track/Trail (6/27/2002 1:43:57 AM)
The Australian Official History of World War II uses the term �Kokoda Track�. The U.S. Official History of World War II uses the term �Kokoda Trail�. I do not have a Japanese history and I�d be language-impeded from reading it anyway. Don

mdiehl -> (6/27/2002 2:08:55 AM)
"I seem to remember it was the kokoda TRAIL and you want to talk about technology ask your so called historians about the aircarft used during WW2 , my understanding they were built on early prototype japanese zeros." The A6M series fighters were based on Howard Hughes "Hughes Racer." The USN early war a/c were based on Grumman and Brewster designs with a developmental history that predated the Zeros by about 2 years. The RAAF Wirraway was based on a home-grown design that started out as a civilian a/c. The RAF/RIAF (in Malaysia and Burma in early 1942) primarily deployed F2A3 (Brewsters) obtained through Lend-Lease, much to their dismay, and Hawker Hurricanes, neither of which had any developmental association with the A6M series used by Japan. The US P40 was an in-line deriavtive of the Curtiss P36 Hawk (a radial engined beastie from 1939). The Bell P39 was a unique design. The Republic P47 "Tunderbolt" was a development from the Seversky P35-Republic P-43 Lancer line. The Lockheed P38 was a unique design. It is often incorrectly supposed that an A6M captured in the Aleutians in early 1943 influenced late war US Navy aircraft design. That's incorrect. The major late war US a/c models F6F and F4U were in design prior to the start of the war and followed closely the principles set forth by their design teams. Igor Sikorski for the Vought F4U, favoring a radial engined demon-dawg and Grumman continuing with the sturdy radial-designs started with the Grumman Goblin series biplane fighter of 1938.

mdiehl -> (6/27/2002 2:17:01 AM)
IJN submarines started the war with the advantage of a torpedo that worked well and had pretty decent speed. In all other ways they were inferior to the US subs that were fielded. Their primary disadvantages were: 1) Their size. They dove slower than any submarine manufactured by any major combatant. 2) Their shallow depth rating. Due in part in many cases to the inclusion of a floatplane hanger deck. An innovative but dangerous (and ultimately, failed) attempt to enhance the "scouting" function of IJN submarines as envisioned in the Decisive Battle Doctrine that was the basis for the IJN's warplan vs. the United States. (Subs were relegated to scouting roles and to attritional attacks on combat vessels. This was the doctrine primarily employed by the IJN throughout WW2.) The US in exigis deployed a number of S-Boats or "Pigboats" (because they lacked a/c, in the tropics, their crews would "sweat like pigs"). These were an obsolete design from the 1920s whose one distinguishing characteristic was that, because they were very small, they could dive quite rapidly when the equipment was in good repair.

Don Bowen -> Wirraway (6/27/2002 2:57:22 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl [B]The RAAF Wirraway was based on a home-grown design that started out as a civilian a/c. [/B][/QUOTE] The RAAF Wirraway was based on the North American NA-33 with improvements as specified by the Australian Government. There was some discontent in the Australian Parliament on the adoption of the U.S. aircraft. The NA-33 was a basic, comparatively simple aircraft with excellent mechanical reliability. It is a member of the family of aircraft that included the famous NA-44, extensively used as a training aircraft by the U.S. Army as the AT-6, the U.S. Navy as the SNJ and by several allied air forces. Another member of the family was the U.S. Army's A-27 light attack aircraft. This was a militarized variation of the NA-44 that was ordered by Siam but seized by the U.S. prior to delivery and issued to the U.S. Army Forces in the Far East. As an Army Cooperation and light attack aircraft the Wirraway was excellent. When pressed into the role of a fighter in 1942 it was completely inadequate. Don

stubby331 -> AUSSIE AIRCRAFT (6/27/2002 12:41:39 PM)
Talking of Aussie aircraft, (the only truly Aussie aircraft being the trusty Boomerang, yay!!!!.) (thats of course if you dont take into account the US designed engine). Has anyone read of Boomerang air to air action? They were used in the war as ground support, so, despite searching I have never read of a air to air engagement. On Michael Chan. Mate, your a riot. :) Please come back to me on the Boomerang question. ta

Duritz -> (6/27/2002 1:59:46 PM)
stubby331, Australian Defence thinking at the time was very similar across a range of military hardware types....... This thinking was; get a design from overseas and adapt or build as quick as possible. Must remember that Aust was in a situation where they bought all their equipment from the UK but that was impossible after 1940 and so they grabbed whatever they could while starting their own industries from scratch. Brewster Buffaloes were bought, NA44's were built under licence while the Boomerang was designed locally as the long term solution to their fighter problem. A similar scenario can be seen with tanks with the A1 Sentinel being developed using M3 Stuart tank pieces as much as possible. But aircraft....... by the time the Boomerang was fully tested and built the US was in the war and Australia had access to their (and indeed a resurgent Britain's) aircraft in huge numbers. The Boomerang was therefore pushed into the same roles as previously filled by the Wirraway, ground support, recon and other light duties. As such it was never sent willingly into combat against enemy fighters but I remember reading somewhere that it wracked up massive kills for the war of 5 enemy aircraft, including 1 Zero of unknown type:eek: :rolleyes: :D !!! I believe this Zero was during the later stages of the NG campaign - Wewak perhaps or Hollandia. Forgot where I read it now and it may have been 6 but.... that's it! Sorry my memory is fading.......:(

Erik Rutins -> The Bob Semple... (6/27/2002 10:21:02 PM)
The pinnacle of New Zealand military technology... ;) http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/newzealand/newzealand.html Regards, - Erik

mdiehl -> Wirraway (6/27/2002 10:21:41 PM)
Right you are Don. I was thinking of the home-grown Boomerang, which turns out not to have been based on a civilian a/c but a whole new body, married to a P&W Twin Wasp engine, with a Wirraway wing section and tail, and later a Spitfire tail. Zounds! With a top speed in level flight of low 300 mph it was good enough to hold its own against the Zeke but surpassed by later US and UK designs.

Michael Chan -> (7/1/2002 11:21:45 AM)
Yes it WAS called the Kokoda trail by an AMERICAN reporter, but the term "Trail" is an american one where as "Track" is an Aussie term, here in Australia it is called the Kokoda Track. Interesting point that you raise about the Zeros.....could you please supply the details and which alllied aircraft were based on the design of the zero? Facts please. Last point...I have not yet attacked your nationality......your arrogance however is anothere issue. __________________ "qui mare teneat, eum necesse rerum potiri" (that whoso can hold the sea has command of the situation) Themistocles 440 BC ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Raverdave I never stated you attacked my nationality, but I'm arrogant because you have the typical Aussia attitude (I am guessing your Australian because of your flag) that you are better than other Asian countrys. I have an Encylopeada of Aircraft, which has most of the worlds aircraft in it and it states that early Australian aircraft were based on Zeros.

stubby331 -> Settle down there big fella (7/1/2002 12:05:52 PM)
WHOAH. Hold on a minute Michael. Lets not get into my country is better than your country crap. I�m Australian, and proud of it, just as you are Japanese (in part at least) and proud of that. Yes, we have differences. But, taking Pot shots with massive generalisations like your statement doesn�t get anyone anywhere except get their backs up. So lets try to be nice and get along huh.

Duritz -> (7/1/2002 1:09:57 PM)
[QUOTE]I have an Encylopeada of Aircraft, which has most of the worlds aircraft in it and it states that early Australian aircraft were based on Zeros.[/QUOTE] Hi Michael, Your quote is of great interest to me. Most early Australian designs were started before the Allies had a working model of the Zero (obtained in the Auletians in June '42 from memory). Allied theory on the Zero was that it was just an inferior Asian aeroplane - the same prejudice you accused Raverdave of - and nothing to worry about, that is of course until after the Pac War had started. By then the Wirraway was already in production and the Boomerang in design phase. If the book states that it was based on the Zero then I would suggest you will have to disregard it - the dates just don't work. At home I have a book that says that if it wasn't for poor quality British troops and commanders then the 8th Australian Division would have stopped the Japanese in the Malaya peninsular - what crap! Point is that authors sometimes lie or guess facts they don't have on hand, a deadline is approaching and you have to get it done so you sort of guess that last detail and send the chapter off to the printer. Perhaps the bloke who wrote it believed it to be true, why wouldn't he - I wish we had copied the Zero design instead of flying breadboxes with wings. BUT we didn't! You can trust me or the book, it doesn't really worry me either way but please don't use race as a reason for disagreement. You and Raverdave should just settle down. WW2 is over and enough people got hurt fighting it the first time round. Duritz.

Ron Saueracker -> wow (7/1/2002 2:48:13 PM)
This thread kinda lost it's direction.:p

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.234375