RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor

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: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

Page: << < prev 18 19 20 21 [22]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/19/2010 6:24:21 PM

mjk428

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

Blue has played a great game since the begining. He was on a counteroffensive with his fleet since day 1. Lost too many ships (Cruisers, DDs, 2 CVs) before things took shape in Central Pacific. Hell, you do not go to Pearl if your oppoent fleet aint broken right?

hmmm.....

quote:

Im not complaining though, its a wonderful game, I was just wondering why my shore defences failed to inflict any damage on the invading troops.

In one turn 75k Japs managed to row ashore virtually unscathed.

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 631

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/19/2010 6:45:38 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

In an AI game I just had the HIJMS Yubari bombard Port Moresby by itself. A CD unit was present with 16 x 6" guns so the CD both outgunned and outranged the Yubari. The damage to PM was minimal but the CD didn't do much of anything to the Yubari either. Two turns before the AI had the HIJMS Kinu bombard PM with roughly the same result. IIRC Yubari along with another 2 CLs and half a dozen DDs were unable to suppress 3 x 2 gun batteries of 5" guns at Wake Island. Although two the results are not conclusive it would seem from the historical event noted above that for one undergunned, obsolescent CL to take on twice as many (larger) guns ashore should be a lot more hazardous to the ship's "paintwork".

The AI is busy occupying various little islands around New Guinea right now but I fear that once it decides to land at PM it'll manage to pull off what the IJN fantasized about at Wake on Dec 11th, 1941 (with the same lack of superiority).

(in reply to mjk428)

Post #: 632

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/20/2010 10:04:44 PM

aspqrz02

Posts: 1024
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Also think its only viable after a Lahania invasion making it a 70 mile trip landing craft may be able to do it themselves.

Range of the relevant Japanese landing craft was 100nm @ 7.5 kts and 50nm @ 8.5 kts. Regardless of speed, they don't have the range without refuelling, and the trip would take around 8-10 hours *each way* ... unless the Japs manage to destroy all the land and carrier based air, all the CD guns, and the entire resident USN force, can you spell "sitting ducks"?

Oh, one wave per LC per day, too.

Phil

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to bklooste)

Post #: 633

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/20/2010 10:16:34 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Also think its only viable after a Lahania invasion making it a 70 mile trip landing craft may be able to do it themselves.

Range of the relevant Japanese landing craft was 100nm @ 7.5 kts and 50nm @ 8.5 kts. Regardless of speed, they don't have the range without refuelling, and the trip would take around 8-10 hours *each way* ... unless the Japs manage to destroy all the land and carrier based air, all the CD guns, and the entire resident USN force, can you spell "sitting ducks"?

Oh, one wave per LC per day, too.

Phil

You don't want to be on those landing craft for 10 hours...

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to aspqrz02)

Post #: 634

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/22/2010 12:37:54 AM

aspqrz02

Posts: 1024
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Also think its only viable after a Lahania invasion making it a 70 mile trip landing craft may be able to do it themselves.

Range of the relevant Japanese landing craft was 100nm @ 7.5 kts and 50nm @ 8.5 kts. Regardless of speed, they don't have the range without refuelling, and the trip would take around 8-10 hours *each way* ... unless the Japs manage to destroy all the land and carrier based air, all the CD guns, and the entire resident USN force, can you spell "sitting ducks"?

Oh, one wave per LC per day, too.

You don't want to be on those landing craft for 10 hours...

Indeed. The one time I was on a LCM8 equivalent of the Royal Australian Army we went outside Sydney Harbour to do a beach assault at Patonga, just up the coast ... maybe an hour/hour and half all up ... the only reason I wasn't seasick was because the LC wasn't anywhere near full and I could stick my head up over the side and get some fresh air.

I doubt anyone could manage it for 10 hours

Phil

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 635

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/22/2010 1:37:45 AM

Knavey

Posts: 3052
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Valrico, Florida
Status: offline

That is why I chose one of the biggest things that floats in the USN! "Storm of the Century" in 1993 barely caused the TR to rock. Unlike the Arliegh Burke which got tossed around like a rag doll. Can't imagine being on something that small for any significant amount of time.

_____________________________

x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"

(in reply to aspqrz02)

Post #: 636