Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Trouble???

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Trouble??? Page: <<   < prev  46 47 [48] 49 50   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Trouble??? - 1/14/2009 6:40:54 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		That is not a problem Hartwig.

Dan won't allow the mulligan and so we move on.  Gawd I HATE the DAMNED AI. 




_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 1411
RE: Trouble??? - 1/14/2009 7:19:49 PM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		John,

so KB did not fly a single plane and was butchered without any CAP or what happened exactly ?

If this is just an opportunity lost, another one will come. If you lost assets, that's worse.

Not sure whether mustering that amount of fighters over a base in a way that it is hit by strategic bombing anyway will be possible in your game (one probably needs a plan for that), but I have been learning during the last day or so that 300+ fighters -even mediocre ones- can hurt even B29 strikes badly. I think this will not only be true for anthishipping missions.

Perhaps there are other ways to convince Dan strategic bombing is not the answer to his problems than the op which did not go according to plan...

Hartwig

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 1412
GREAT News! - 1/14/2009 7:54:54 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		While I ruminate on the partial miscarry of Operation Shimikaze (plan on there being ANOTHER one) I got great news from the area of Aircraft Research.

FROM: 
Gumma Fighter Research Division
Mitori Hasaka, Director

TO: 
Imperial High Command

RE:  Frank Production

May it please the Emperor and the War Council I have the humble honor of informing you that the Japanese aircraft industry will be able to begin producing the Frank one month EARLIER then anticipated.   Current factory production is slated for nearly 300 a month.  Production will be increased even more quickly due to the planned conversion of Tojo Factories which are currently producing over 150 of these planes each month.  In short, the Home Islands should be able to upgrade their current fighters at a pace of nearly 500 planes per month.

Humbly Submitted,

Mitori Hasaka


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 1413
GREAT News--Part 2! - 1/14/2009 8:00:58 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		FROM: 
Gumma Bomber Research Division
Kalahara Mitsuo, Director

TO: 
Imperial High Command

RE:  Peggy Production

Having just read the auspitious news regarding the early delivery of the Frank, I would like to humble add the following note to my Co-Director's news.  Peggy production shall start, as promised, at the beginning of July.  We currently can produce 123 Peggy with the new Factory as well as add 90 more airframes once the two Helen plants are re-tooled.  Since the Peggy carries a Torpedo we know how much value the High Command places on it rapid introduction to the combat theatres. 

With Great Humbleness,


Kalahara Mitsuo, Director

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 1414
Operation Shimakaze Results - 1/14/2009 8:23:57 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Combat Report
June 22, 1944
Operation Shimakaze

Synopsis of Action:

Raid One
(from Pagan) 56 A6M3a and 119 Helen/Sally versus 34 Hellcats/Corsairs

The Zeros are flown by pilots skilled in their 70s and ti shows within the fighting.  While 19 Zeros fall they take 6 Hellcats and keep ALL the CAP off of their charges.  The bombers are met with an absolute HELL of AA from the island.  This, of course, is made possible by having over 25 units (strength 150,000 men) sitting there!  Regardless of practicality--the Bombers drop their loads on the northern AF and depart.  They lose 26 bombers while on their run from 10,000 Ft.  Moderate damage is done to the AF.

Raid Two
(from Saipan)  53 A6M3a, 67 Betty, and 168 Frances bore in about 10 minutes after the first raid.  They are opposed by 28 Fighters.  These fighters manage to keep most of the CAP off of their charges too.  The Betty and half of the Frances drop their bombs on the southern AF causing depressingly light damage.  The remainder of the Frances attack the shipping disbanded in the impossible-to-have Port of Iwo Jima.  The CVE Corrigidor get a lot of attention as does an SS, 2 LCT, and an AVD.  When the raid depart for home they tally the loss of 13 Zero and 14 bombers.

Decoy 1
A MSW is nailed by 8 F, 30 DB, and 2 Liberators as it blazes past Cuichi JIma.  IT sinks.

Decoy 2
Three Japanese DDs are attacked by 60 P-38 and 11 4EB.  One Japanese tincan takes a single bomb and retures towards Saipan.


From:  Admiral Nagumo Chuicki
TO:  Captain of IJN Kaga

You are hereby relieved of command and ordered to commit Seppuku for the unwarranted decision of refuelling two Destroyers during the night.  This action caused the might of this Carrier Force to NOT be unleashed against helpless American shipping.  What might our strike of 120 Zero, 164 Judy, and 192 Jill/Grace have done with only having to face two dozen American Fighters? 

Admiral Nagumo     

Totals for the Day:
CVE Corregidor, 2 LCT, and an SS sunk.  The Japanese lose 32 Zero, 26 IJA Bombers, and 17 IJN Bombers in exchange for 13 Fighters, 2 4EB, 1 SBD, and 1 Avenger.

It COULD have been so much more...

I HATE THE AI!



_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 1415
RE: Trouble??? - 1/14/2009 8:36:34 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		John, feel your pain. If I had a Yen for every time a CV TF losses ops points to an unwanted refuel......Argh.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 1416
RE: Operation Shimakaze Results - 1/14/2009 8:36:54 PM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		John,

Posted this (basically) on Dans page as well

I feel that in WITP, trying to co-ordinate too many TF and Airbases into a single action is fraught with danger. It might explain why IRL operations are "overkill", guarantees something will get throuh.

I suppose you have been lucky, half of your CV might have attacked and got their attacks smashed while Dans counterattack could have sunk 2-3 CV.

As it is, it appears your Op failed but with minimal loss except to nerves.
I was looking forward to the action, though I wasnt confidant of an overwhelming victory for you.

Keep going, I feel that while the Allied strength is starting to overpower, you still have good chances to make him pay dearly for his succeses.

< Message edited by JeffK -- 1/14/2009 8:38:17 PM >

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 1417
RE: Operation Shimakaze Results - 1/14/2009 8:48:16 PM   
skrewball


Posts: 305
Joined: 12/10/2000
From: Belgium
Status: offline 		Hey John, I just got done reading your WHOLE AAR yesterday (Yes I was bored at work ). I was looking forward to this operation and it sucks to be sidelined by game mismanagement.

Question though, was your TF set to Refueling Ok? If you turn that off does it stop DDs from fueling from you carriers?

_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 1418
RE: Operation Shimakaze Results - 1/14/2009 8:51:45 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: skrewball

Hey John, I just got done reading your WHOLE AAR yesterday (Yes I was bored at work ). I was looking forward to this operation and it sucks to be sidelined by game mismanagement.

Question though, was your TF set to Refueling Ok? If you turn that off does it stop DDs from fueling from you carriers?



no it does not! You can do nothing about your ships being refuelled at sea. You can minimize this risk though, order to refuel them one turn before you order your TF to do the full speed move. That way, I had never refuel them when they shouldn´t.

_____________________________


(in reply to skrewball)
Post #: 1419
RE: Operation Shimakaze Results - 1/14/2009 9:01:48 PM   
skrewball


Posts: 305
Joined: 12/10/2000
From: Belgium
Status: offline 		Is this being addressed in AE?

_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 1420
RE: Operation Shimakaze Results - 1/14/2009 9:01:49 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		When I'm unsure that a base has enough fuel to refuel the whole TF or group of TFs like you just had come into Saipan, I pull out those ships that need it the most to refuel them before placing them back in that TF. Next, is set the home port to somewhere close by to prevent the AI from doing what happened to you.

Did your TF have their speed set to mission or full?? 

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 1421
RE: Operation Shimakaze Results - 1/14/2009 9:55:35 PM   
Mistmatz

 

Posts: 1399
Joined: 10/16/2005
Status: offline 		Whenever I need a TF do exactly the move I want it to do, I set their home harbour to be nearby. Ideally, the vessel with fuel for the lowewst number of remaining hexes should be able to arrive this base with whatever it has left in its bunkers. Obviously going away from cruise speed setting this calculation may easily fail.

But I guess this is common practice and probably John did something similar. Especially as there are a couple of Japanese bases nearby to retreat to.

I guess we can assume KB will fight another day...

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 1422
RE: Operation Shimakaze Results - 1/14/2009 11:03:28 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		My TF had plenty of fuel.  They were set to return to Saipan.  Normal movement set.  All that they had to do was move FIVE hexes and then be in position to launch.  Kaga refueled 2 DD that were at 3,500 of 5,000 capacity the turn prior.  This cost me a hex and cost me a chance to seriously sink some shipping with only 24 Allied Fighters flying CAP. 

What a damned waste!  No wonder Dan refused.  He KNEW I had him dead-to-rights and thus...

Rather pissed off human being at the moment.  Should note this is directed at the AI and not my partner.



_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Mistmatz)
Post #: 1423
Aircraft Production - 1/14/2009 11:09:55 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		This is a nice screenshot!






Attachment (1)

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 1424
RE: Aircraft Production - 1/14/2009 11:32:02 PM   
n01487477


Posts: 4779
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline 		Frank V Tony100
  • From what I can tell the Frank is a much better plane because it has higher speed.
  • They have the same armament.
  • They have the same range.
  • The Tony has no groups to build
  • The Frank (a) and (c) have 2 groups of 36 planes each

    Zeke8
  • lower speed than the Frank
  • Less range
  • different armament ... not sure how accurate the weapons are ???
  • no groups to build

    Hope this helps ...


    _____________________________

    -Damian-
    EconDoc
    TrackerAE
    Tutes&Java

    (in reply to John 3rd)
    • Post #: 1425
    RE: Operation Shimakaze Results - 1/15/2009 1:49:15 AM   
    FeurerKrieg


    Posts: 3397
    Joined: 6/15/2005
    From: Denver, CO
    Status: offline
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: John 3rd

    What a damned waste!  No wonder Dan refused.  He KNEW I had him dead-to-rights and thus...




    While I realize it is frustrating, I don't think it is really fair to say that because he knew things would have gone worse is the reason for his refusal of a mulligan. I know if I was in his position I would not allow a redo either.

    Things happen - war is not a perfect science. That being said - the things I do to try and minimize refuels at sea:
    1) Select closest base possible for the home port
    2) Only use 6200 or higher capacity destroyers with carriers (if possible)
    3) Always set full speed when preparing to launch a strike - and only cruise speed when getting into position
    4) If I'm low on destroyers 6200 capacity destroyers - I'll put fewer in the Air combat TF and set the shorter legged boats in their own TF's set to ASW and have them follow the carriers. Less AA, but that's better than unway refueling.


    _____________________________


    Upper portion used with permission of www.subart.net, copyright John Meeks

    (in reply to John 3rd)
    Post #: 1426
    RE: Operation Shimakaze Results - 1/15/2009 2:15:29 AM   
    Alikchi2

     

    Posts: 1785
    Joined: 5/14/2004
    Status: offline     		Navy fighters? I'd invest in the Reppu or Shinden, personally. This late in the war, the difference in Zero quality is minimal.

    _____________________________


    (in reply to FeurerKrieg)
    Post #: 1427
    RE: Operation Shimakaze Results - 1/15/2009 3:55:37 AM   
    Heeward


    Posts: 343
    Joined: 1/27/2003
    From: Lacey Washington
    Status: offline     		Your Iwo Jima operation was a success without you CV's flying a single strike aircraft! You have intiated another raid against his supply lines / exposed bases that he has to respond to. He will either have to pull his horns in or dissapate his efforts even more to escort convoys and maintain greater cap over bases. This will result in either less escorts or less bombers - both of which help you.

    _____________________________

    The Wake

    (in reply to Alikchi2)
    Post #: 1428
    RE: Operation Shimakaze Results - 1/15/2009 4:22:53 AM   
    John 3rd


    Posts: 17178
    Joined: 9/8/2005
    From: La Salle, Colorado
    Status: offline
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Heeward

    Your Iwo Jima operation was a success without you CV's flying a single strike aircraft! You have intiated another raid against his supply lines / exposed bases that he has to respond to. He will either have to pull his horns in or dissapate his efforts even more to escort convoys and maintain greater cap over bases. This will result in either less escorts or less bombers - both of which help you.


    That is damned fine thinking! I was saying similar to Michael just this afternoon.

    You want to see him stretch? Watch what I about to do in China regarding his B-29 bases...


    _____________________________



    Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

    Reluctant Admiral Mod:
    https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

    (in reply to Heeward)
    Post #: 1429
    RE: Operation Shimakaze Results - 1/15/2009 4:24:19 AM   
    John 3rd


    Posts: 17178
    Joined: 9/8/2005
    From: La Salle, Colorado
    Status: offline
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: John 3rd

    What a damned waste!  No wonder Dan refused.  He KNEW I had him dead-to-rights and thus...




    While I realize it is frustrating, I don't think it is really fair to say that because he knew things would have gone worse is the reason for his refusal of a mulligan. I know if I was in his position I would not allow a redo either.

    Things happen - war is not a perfect science. That being said - the things I do to try and minimize refuels at sea:
    1) Select closest base possible for the home port
    2) Only use 6200 or higher capacity destroyers with carriers (if possible)
    3) Always set full speed when preparing to launch a strike - and only cruise speed when getting into position
    4) If I'm low on destroyers 6200 capacity destroyers - I'll put fewer in the Air combat TF and set the shorter legged boats in their own TF's set to ASW and have them follow the carriers. Less AA, but that's better than unway refueling.



    This reveals how little you know about the Japanese in this Mod. The BEST class of DD I have has a 5,000 Range and that is it.


    _____________________________



    Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

    Reluctant Admiral Mod:
    https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

    (in reply to FeurerKrieg)
    Post #: 1430
    RE: Operation Shimakaze Results - 1/15/2009 4:39:45 AM   
    FeurerKrieg


    Posts: 3397
    Joined: 6/15/2005
    From: Denver, CO
    Status: offline     		Nothing over 5,000? Man that sounds like no fun at all!

    Even the Akizuki's only have 5,000?

    _____________________________


    Upper portion used with permission of www.subart.net, copyright John Meeks

    (in reply to John 3rd)
    Post #: 1431
    RE: Operation Shimakaze Results - 1/15/2009 5:13:44 AM   
    John 3rd


    Posts: 17178
    Joined: 9/8/2005
    From: La Salle, Colorado
    Status: offline     		I would have to look but am sure that is the best I get...



    _____________________________



    Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

    Reluctant Admiral Mod:
    https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

    (in reply to FeurerKrieg)
    Post #: 1432
    Operation Harukaze - 1/15/2009 5:28:22 AM   
    John 3rd


    Posts: 17178
    Joined: 9/8/2005
    From: La Salle, Colorado
    Status: offline     		The next phase of Japanese hit-and-fade operations. I give it an official title hoping that Dan notices and thinks I am working on another Fleet action. The reality is that the ENTIRE Fleet is going to Soerabaja for repairs and upgrades. I have upgraded that Port to have a Repair Yard of 104 size.

    I can defend this Port far more easily then anywhere else. The only B-29 that can hit are unescorted coming from Darwin. There are now 130 Fighters there and when the Fleet arrives that will bump to 400 or so. Should 'deter' the Americans I should think...

    Here is Harukaze:






    Attachment (1)

    _____________________________



    Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

    Reluctant Admiral Mod:
    https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

    (in reply to John 3rd)
    Post #: 1433
    Operation Harukaze - 1/15/2009 5:38:45 AM   
    John 3rd


    Posts: 17178
    Joined: 9/8/2005
    From: La Salle, Colorado
    Status: offline     		This is a Theatre that I expect to heat-up within the next 4-6 weeks. Am moving troops and preparing positions. It is my hope to do some damage down here to any Allied attack...





    Attachment (1)

    _____________________________



    Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

    Reluctant Admiral Mod:
    https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

    (in reply to John 3rd)
    Post #: 1434
    RE: Operation Harukaze - 1/15/2009 12:00:49 PM   
    2ndACR


    Posts: 5665
    Joined: 8/31/2003
    From: Irving,Tx
    Status: offline     		I would leave the squares just as bait or maybe use some naval guard units to prevent para drops. I think all those bases are 0/0 bases that will take some time to buildup. Keep a Div ready, have the shipping ready and the moment the allies land well, sally forth and smash them.

    Any base you garrison, well you know he will bring the kitchen sink.

    (in reply to John 3rd)
    Post #: 1435
    Operation Harukaze - 1/15/2009 6:08:29 PM   
    John 3rd


    Posts: 17178
    Joined: 9/8/2005
    From: La Salle, Colorado
    Status: offline     		Strategic Air Defense
    New Moves

    AA Units
    I was looking around the cupboard in Manchuria and spotted something I hadn't thought of.  There are a number of Heavy AA Regiments in Manchuria that I haven't used.  The total was eight of them and they all got orders to move to Pusan for immediate embarkation to Japan.  Currently there are 4 AA units in both Gumma and Tokyo.  The reinforcements will be spread in two groups of four as well.  Am thinking of placing them in Northern Honshu where I have given up my Fighter defense.  Akita and Aomori are the logical spots.   

    Air HQ
    Since I have ceded Hokkaido to American aerial superiority there is no need for Air HQ in this region.  I ordered 3 Air Flotilla, an Air Division HQ, an Aviation Regiment, and an Engineering Regiment to move to Hakodate.  They did and were lifted off (no interference whatsoever) a few days ago.  I will spread these units around to help with base repair, support, and supply concentration.  Cannot believe that the 40+ AK/AP I used (with no Fighter cover) weren't even touched by American airpower!

    Operation Harukaze will begin about July 1st.  Am moving Base Force units around in China to ready my AF for quick strikes.  Have also moved in 4 Sentai of Fighters for training purposes.  The training attacks will occur in conjunction with the bombing strikes at various locations.


    _____________________________



    Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

    Reluctant Admiral Mod:
    https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

    (in reply to 2ndACR)
    Post #: 1436
    RE: Aircraft Production - 1/15/2009 6:10:45 PM   
    John 3rd


    Posts: 17178
    Joined: 9/8/2005
    From: La Salle, Colorado
    Status: offline
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: n01487477

    Frank V Tony100
  • From what I can tell the Frank is a much better plane because it has higher speed.
  • They have the same armament.
  • They have the same range.
  • The Tony has no groups to build
  • The Frank (a) and (c) have 2 groups of 36 planes each

    Zeke8
  • lower speed than the Frank
  • Less range
  • different armament ... not sure how accurate the weapons are ???
  • no groups to build

    Hope this helps ...



    • Damian and Alikchi--Thanks for the thoughts regarding plane choice and research. The plan is to wait until July 1st and then shift some research into new fighter-types. I will not use the Tony-100 or A6M8. Will pick one of the other two Navy choices...


    _____________________________



    Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

    Reluctant Admiral Mod:
    https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

    (in reply to n01487477)
    Post #: 1437
    RE: Aircraft Production - 1/15/2009 6:41:03 PM   
    ny59giants


    Posts: 9869
    Joined: 1/10/2005
    Status: offline
    quote:

    AA Units
    I was looking around the cupboard in Manchuria and spotted something I hadn't thought of. There are a number of Heavy AA Regiments in Manchuria that I haven't used. The total was eight of them and they all got orders to move to Pusan for immediate embarkation to Japan. Currently there are 4 AA units in both Gumma and Tokyo. The reinforcements will be spread in two groups of four as well. Am thinking of placing them in Northern Honshu where I have given up my Fighter defense. Akita and Aomori are the logical spots.


    Why place them in places that have no value to you now?? I would add them to bases that are still important to your economy....like your Frank fighters just to name one. Gumma and Tokyo are large bases for your production and still close enough to the front lines in the strategic bombing campaign against you.

    Pull up Tracker and look for all your AA LCUs to see if there are others that could be used.

    (in reply to John 3rd)
    Post #: 1438
    Aircraft Production--Fighter Choices - 1/15/2009 10:06:31 PM   
    John 3rd


    Posts: 17178
    Joined: 9/8/2005
    From: La Salle, Colorado
    Status: offline     		Michael---good thinking as always. I looked around and I actually have 7 plants that will be producing the plane. They are spread around so that is a good thing.

    The decision must be made as to which Navy plane to research. Using TRACKER here are the choices:






    Attachment (1)

    _____________________________



    Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

    Reluctant Admiral Mod:
    https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

    (in reply to ny59giants)
    Post #: 1439
    RE: Trouble??? - 1/15/2009 10:19:42 PM   
    Q-Ball


    Posts: 7336
    Joined: 6/25/2002
    From: Chicago, Illinois
    Status: offline     		John, that's a no-brainer: Shinden. They can actually take on Allied fighters on even terms, and don't need to be crack pilots to get kills. Remember back in 1942 when that used to happen?

    Relive the glory days with the Shinden. It's the Japanese Corsair.

    _____________________________


    (in reply to John 3rd)
    Post #: 1440
    Page:   <<   < prev  46 47 [48] 49 50   next >   >>
    All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Trouble??? Page: <<   < prev  46 47 [48] 49 50   next >   >>
    Jump to:





    New Messages No New Messages
    Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
    Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
     Post New Thread
     Reply to Message
     Post New Poll
     Submit Vote
     Delete My Own Post
     Delete My Own Thread
     Rate Posts


    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

    0.781