RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (Full Version)

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



Message

SheperdN7 -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/28/2017 4:17:32 AM)

Well I would say that the IJN is a match for the USN for 2 ships classes:

DD's
CA's

Those are the only 2 ship classes which are comparable even against late war USN classes. That being said I'd almost never would put Mogami's up against Baltimore's but they sure stand a much better chance than an Agano against a Brooklyn!



BBfanboy -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/28/2017 5:57:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SheperdN7

Well I would say that the IJN is a match for the USN for 2 ships classes:

DD's
CA's

Those are the only 2 ship classes which are comparable even against late war USN classes. That being said I'd almost never would put Mogami's up against Baltimore's but they sure stand a much better chance than an Agano against a Brooklyn!

I have been terribly disappointed in CAs Baltimore and Boston during my games. They just could not seem to land a hit. I gave them good skippers, but crew experience is not up to battle with the very experienced Japanese. I should have had them doing bombardments to gain experience and waited for the magic date when USN fire control bonuses kick in (whenever that is) before committing them to battle with IJN cruisers.



wdolson -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/28/2017 6:09:00 AM)


Late in the war the US delayed completing a number of CAs as a new 8 inch shell and gun was developed. The 8" gun had a relatively low rate of fire while the 6" CLs could really pump out the rounds. The 8" required a separate bag and shell which slowed things down the new gun used and 8" cartridge which increased the rate of fire.

Bill



Lokasenna -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/28/2017 6:19:36 AM)

The folks on the World of Warships forums, while knowledgeable in a general way, could really learn a few things here.



SheperdN7 -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/28/2017 6:57:31 AM)

quote:

The folks on the World of Warships forums, while knowledgeable in a general way, could really learn a few things here.


+1

I agree, have lots of friends that frequent those forums, if only I could get them to migrate over here[8|]



Alpha77 -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/28/2017 9:06:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SheperdN7

Akizuki's equal greatest ships the Empire has to offer (other than MAYBE the Shimakaze's and Taiho)


Love the Empire for its CA's, DD's and floatplane carrying subs.... Not much else other than KB[:D]


But still, why such hate for my Kongo's? I love those ships[:(]





The only advantage IJN has is experience and better officers but this will go away over time. Mainly night exp and good torps (if they would hit)


Yes, CAs are good but underprotected. DDs Shima + Aki are not fuel efficient, so I would rather chose the Kagero/Yugumo as best ones..

And re. BB fanboy I believe you do not gain much exp from bombardements, perhaps to a certain limit yes. But I did not have exp gain from bombardements with IJ ships, that are obviously above this supposed limit already. The best gain you get when you sink ships probably combat ships and are hit yourself but are able to survive and repair. I noted in the lost battles the ships did not gain at all, even if they were hit and hit themselves. So it seems best case is a won battle, sink an enemy and your ship is damaged and repairs.



Hotei -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/28/2017 2:12:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: SheperdN7

Akizuki's equal greatest ships the Empire has to offer (other than MAYBE the Shimakaze's and Taiho)


Love the Empire for its CA's, DD's and floatplane carrying subs.... Not much else other than KB[:D]


But still, why such hate for my Kongo's? I love those ships[:(]








Yes, CAs are good but underprotected. DDs Shima + Aki are not fuel efficient, so I would rather chose the Kagero/Yugumo as best ones..




Destoyers cant be really good at everything, some are good for AA and some for ASW.
Japan wanted to use them in surface action, at night, so they have the torpedoes for that work.
Deciding the future upgrades is vital for Japan, naturally they wont be as good as the Fletchers but that is a pointless comparison.
You are fighting a superior enemy, just do the best you can.



Lokasenna -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/28/2017 3:29:40 PM)

Fletchers can be good at everything.



Insano -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/28/2017 3:43:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Fletchers can be good at everything.


- except sinking

Banzai!



Hotei -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/28/2017 3:45:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Fletchers can be good at everything.



It is better that the Japanese classify them as light cruisers.



Lokasenna -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/28/2017 4:45:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Insano


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Fletchers can be good at everything.


- except sinking

Banzai!


Idunno, they're pretty good at that, too.



Alpha77 -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/28/2017 4:48:36 PM)

Well my plan is still to bring surface fleets with all the "not so good" ships to battle. But conditions are not favourable (over 90% moon), maybe our subs, mines etc. will hit another cruiser from them, to get a bit better favourable odds. Guess need to finally try to protect Tassa,Lunga from the bombardements again. Wrote a small AAR update...In 43 the conditions for ours will be even worse, right?

Most my CVs also repaired, upgraded...but I do not see how to use them in this area with hundreds of enemy fighters. Most CV aircrews were trained up again and do not want to lose 40-50% again.



wdolson -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (3/1/2017 3:38:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Fletchers can be good at everything.


Gearings were even better, but they didn't come along until the end of the war. The Gearings incorporated lessons learned with the Fletchers. They made the hull a little bit wider to allow three dual gun turrets instead of 5X single mounts and they made the ship longer to increase the fuel tank size. By reducing the number of turrets, they lowered topside weight and increased the ship's punch. The Fletcher was never really designed for Pacific use. It was always considered too short legged compared to what the USN really wanted. They were going to design a longer hull variant for the Pacific, but never got around to putting it into production until they did the bigger redesign for the Gearing.

Bill



BillBrown -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (3/1/2017 4:55:50 AM)

I wonder why in the game the Gearings have the same endurance as the Fletchers?



wdolson -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (3/1/2017 7:49:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

I wonder why in the game the Gearings have the same endurance as the Fletchers?



From my reading about US destroyer designs, the Sumner got the dual gun turrets and the Gearing had more fuel. According to Wikipedia, the Fletch had a range of 5500 nmi, the Sumner 6000 nmi, and the Gearing 4500 nmi. I think somebody got it wrong, the Wikipedia article mentions the Gearings had more fuel. The range for the Gearings are at 20 knots, while the other two are at 15 knots.

I'll have to look at the book I read. It's been a while since I read it.

Bill



Alpha77 -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (3/1/2017 12:07:57 PM)

If someone has some more tips how I can protect Guadalcanal from bombardements by Allied fleets bring it up (mines and subs are aleady there), night bombing not allowed. Anti shipping air will not hit, as the ships are gone at daylight.

Also just to clear that up, the MOONLIGHT needs to be as low as possible to favour the Japanese, correct? Sorry for dumb questions, but I only played the AI before and did not even care about this issue - the AI would send its ships eventually in range of my air and better fleets anyway....eg. 50% moonlight or lower would be ok, but I have over 80% at the moment, so better not risk anything [&:]

Thanks [&o]



BillBrown -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (3/1/2017 1:06:08 PM)

Bill, I saw the Wiki range for the Gearing is for 4500nmi, but that was at 20 knots and the other ranges are at 15 knots.



Barb -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (3/1/2017 1:11:04 PM)

According to the http://destroyerhistory.org the endurance of the classes at 15 kts was:
Fletcher: 4800nm
Sumner: 4800nm
Gearing: 5800nm



BillBrown -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (3/1/2017 1:16:20 PM)

That would sound about right Barb.



US87891 -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (3/1/2017 1:34:15 PM)

Hello. Barb is real close. There is probably some rounding or averaging in the internet numbers. According to USN, with everything measured the same way:

DD 445, Fletcher Class
Fuel Oil Capacity: 142,655 gal, 3,397 bbl, 515 tons
Mean Displacement: 2850 tons
Radius at Mean Displacement:
4,490 nm @ 15 knots – 12.5 days steady state
3,480 nm @ 20 knots – 7.2 days steady state
1,020 nm @ 33 knots – 1.3 days steady state

DD 692, Sumner Class
Fuel Oil Capacity: 139,608 gal, 3,324 bbl, 504 tons
Mean Displacement: 3100 tons
Radius at Mean Displacement:
4,220 nm @ 15 knots – 11.8 days steady state
3,240 nm @ 20 knots – 6.8 days steady state
1,090 nm @ 31 knots – 1.5 days steady state

DD 710, Gearing Class
Fuel Oil Capacity: 207,196 gal, 4,933 bbl, 748 tons
Mean Displacement: 3300 tons
Radius at Mean Displacement:
5,690 nm @ 15 knots – 15.9 days steady state
4,380 nm @ 20 knots – 9.1 days steady state
1,600 nm @ 31 knots – 2.2 days steady state



Lokasenna -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (3/1/2017 4:11:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Fletchers can be good at everything.


Gearings were even better, but they didn't come along until the end of the war. The Gearings incorporated lessons learned with the Fletchers. They made the hull a little bit wider to allow three dual gun turrets instead of 5X single mounts and they made the ship longer to increase the fuel tank size. By reducing the number of turrets, they lowered topside weight and increased the ship's punch. The Fletcher was never really designed for Pacific use. It was always considered too short legged compared to what the USN really wanted. They were going to design a longer hull variant for the Pacific, but never got around to putting it into production until they did the bigger redesign for the Gearing.

Bill


Well, except that in game the Gearings have much less armor (Belt/Deck 5/5 instead of 18/12), and the Sumners don't have any at all. This is a huge part of why Fletchers are so good - they can take on IJN DDs and plenty of the hits will bounce off of armor.

Their earlier arrival also tends to mean that their crews are more experienced than the Gearings by the time the Gearings arrive, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the ships themselves.



BBfanboy -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (3/1/2017 5:50:17 PM)

Don't know if it was a post-war feature or not, but the Gearing class DDs I visited had the 3"50 dual guns instead of 40mm. These AA guns had longer range and a good rate of fire. Under director control they had a good chance of shooting down fast moving targets.



rustysi -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (3/1/2017 10:09:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

If someone has some more tips how I can protect Guadalcanal from bombardements by Allied fleets bring it up (mines and subs are aleady there), night bombing not allowed. Anti shipping air will not hit, as the ships are gone at daylight.

Also just to clear that up, the MOONLIGHT needs to be as low as possible to favour the Japanese, correct? Sorry for dumb questions, but I only played the AI before and did not even care about this issue - the AI would send its ships eventually in range of my air and better fleets anyway....eg. 50% moonlight or lower would be ok, but I have over 80% at the moment, so better not risk anything [&:]

Thanks [&o]


Don't know what to say. I believe you said your game is in early '42 and I just can't see how you got in this condition so early on to tell you the truth. I know mines won't do much against bombardment missions and neither will mini-subs, besides you don't have too many of those at this point.

CD guns would be best, but Japan has few and most if not all are static at this point. I would just flood the approaches with subs if he is being so regular. Eventually you should damage some of his ships. Hopefully enough for him to give up. Heck I just had an RO sub put two fish into Warspite (sorry warspite1) in my game. She won't sink, but I'll bet its back to the yards for her.

One other thing, I'd say based on your description of what your opponent has done and the time of the game, he's put all his 'eggs in one basket', so to speak. I can't see that he would have many forces to oppose you elsewhere. maybe you could find an area that he considers sensitive and apply pressure there in the hopes of diverting some of his effort.

I can tell you in my game I've got almost 250 LB A/C in the Rabaul/Solomons/New Guinea area and there are airfields for them to operate from as far down as Munda and Milne Bay. I also haven't denuded other areas of operations. I just put a few more forces in the Philippines and I got done there in mid-March. I'm currently in early April '42. Now I know I'm playing the AI, but in a PBEM I would expect the Southeast area of operations to be a potential hot spot. Therefore I plan to have forces there accordingly. If my opponent were to apply pressure elsewhere hopefully my preps in those areas should suffice to deter and defeat such early efforts. IOW you can't neglect other areas of the Empire.

Beyond this I really don't know what to say. Maybe some other with more experience/insight may chime in to give you their pearls of wisdom.



Lokasenna -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (3/1/2017 11:09:08 PM)

How to kill Allied bombardment TFs in 1942, you ask?

KB, I say. Torpedo planes make CAs and BBs go glug-glug.



wdolson -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (3/2/2017 5:43:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Well, except that in game the Gearings have much less armor (Belt/Deck 5/5 instead of 18/12), and the Sumners don't have any at all. This is a huge part of why Fletchers are so good - they can take on IJN DDs and plenty of the hits will bounce off of armor.

Their earlier arrival also tends to mean that their crews are more experienced than the Gearings by the time the Gearings arrive, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the ships themselves.


I don't know why the Gearings have much less armor in the WW II time frame. After the war a lot of the topside steel was replaced with aluminum which dramatically reduced topside weight. I knew someone who served on the Gearing in Vietnam and they did close in bombardment. He said it was terrifying because the aluminum would spall when hit with just rifle rounds making it more dangerous to be inside something topside than out in the open.

When built during the war I thought the early Gearings had similar armoring as the Fletchers. That's probably something to look at for scenario updates.

Bill



Alpha77 -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (3/14/2017 8:21:10 PM)

Some of the Allies paid for the evil actions. I used 2-3 hints from here and waited this time for better low moonlight...so thanks. Ofc it would be better had still had Yamato with the now better knowledge [:(]

But BB Fuso just proved that I listed her in the "good ships" this time made up for it, a Kongo tho was not so good :) Will post the combat reports later in the AAR..the "recon" or advance guard with CLs this time worked too. But Allies at disadvantage they were landing at Lunga so some ships probably low on ammo from landing support fire.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.035156