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: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$

 
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 >> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/15/2005 3:57:31 PM   
Hoplosternum


Posts: 690
Joined: 6/12/2002
From: Romford, England
Status: offline 		I have had very badly damaged Japanese survive (and other big warships). But float damage can get out of control easily. You need either a bit of luck or be close to a port where you can disband any damaged ships. You cannot safely fight without being close to a decent base. Those size 3 ports will often not stop the flooding increase.

The Japanese can build plenty of ARs and they can add up to 4 extra size to the small ports in the Solomons, Gilberts and Marshalls. It's definitely worth rush building an extra dozen or so for forward repairs.

I think you have been unlucky but at the same time you took on a foe that could hurt you too far away from your bases seemingly. Most '42 encounters end badly for the US CVs. Their Torpedo planes have short range and can hardly hit anything. The dauntless range 4 500lbers won't even penetrate the deck of Kaga, Akagi, Shokaku or Zuikaku. Quite frankly the only saving grace for the US is that KB is brittle. I don't think with the Uber CAP the IJN needs any more advantages.

As Treespider has demonstrated the IJN CVs were fairly weak. There were many ships (not just CVs) sunk by bombs. Near misses and even hits often caused flood damage IRL. If you would be happier with losing ships to expanding fire damage rather than to flood that would probably be more accurate for most. But I can't see much difference myself. WitP seems to make flood the killer.

All my experience has been that hits deal wildly different amounts of damage. I nearly lost Yorktown to a single Torpedo - 50+ sys and 60+ flooding. Yet other 'penetrating' hits have done next to nothing. Some ships get hit and make a long voyage in the same state, while others remove vast flooding at sea in a few days or rapidly fill up and go down. It happens to allied ships to though not as often. If you are in danger of being hit make sure you are near to a decent base

(in reply to LittleJoe)
Post #: 31
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/15/2005 4:10:21 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		One thing to keep in mind with progressive flooding is that it's process had to be "Fudged" to a degree in order to incorporate it within the rigid framework of 24 hour game turns. What that means is for the designer to incorporate 'progressive' flooding which if serious, usually will fall within the space of 24 hours, it had to be represented in game turns over a longer period to represent the fact that the flooding is progressive.

So dont consider the situation too literally. if a ship floods to the crippled point over a four turn "period" it can abstractly mean to represent a ship that is hit and suffers flooding over a shorter period in real life turns.

The alternate, (i.e. PacWar and earlier wargames) method is simply to assign a static damage/FLT % on the same turn which IMHO is not as realistic.

For what it's worth, i can relate to Caster's frustration. In my current game , i lost the BB Hyuga to progressive flooding after being badly damaged by two torpedoes. In "game" turns she took 8 turns to sink (translated "litterally" thats 8 days) but if one factors in the abstracted integration of progressive Flooding into the game a more reasonable translation of the events was that Hyuga, after being badly damaged by two torpedoes, struggled to get back to Rangoon harbor with attempts to curb the flooding damage ultimately proving unsuccessful (within a shorter real time period)

Was I unlucky? yes.....such a thing doesn't happen all the time. I was quite peeved because i actually GOT the ship into a large harbor (Rangoon) and disolved the TF figuring that with size 6, she'd survive. She didnt't I was quite pissed as Kaiser can attest

Fortunes of war in this case.

_____________________________


(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 32
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/15/2005 4:16:07 PM   
Marc


Posts: 280
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Braunschweig, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Per your request

19 June 1944:
Battle of the Marianas. While launching part of `Raid I' against TF 58 in position 12-24'N, 137-20'E the TAIHO at 0810 is hit in the starboard side forward abreast No.1 elevator by one of six torpedoes fired by USS ALBACORE. The impact punches a hole in the hull which floods the forward elevator well and gives the TAIHO a 1.5 meter trim by the bow, but she maintains speed at 26 knots. The forward elevator, which was raised for launching operations is jarred loose and falls two meters, disrupting take-off operations and the torpedo hit cracks the av-gas tanks underneath it as well. As a result, free gasoline mixes with the water flooding the forward elevator well and av-gas vapor builds up in the space. Within a half-hour damage control has planked over the settled No.1 elevator and the remaining planes were launched. However, the gas vapor builds in the closed hanger and enclosed bow area and becomes serious. Efforts to free the mounting vapor by knocking holes in the ship's side or to ventilate the hangar are made. But at 1432 a tremendous induced explosion of gas vapor occurs forward, buckling the armored flight deck upward and blowing out the sides of the hangar deck. The precise force and cause of the explosion are somewhat ambiguous (see Note 2 for details:), but the shock of the blast ruptured the hull below the waterline, and all power failed. By 1500 the TAIHO is dead in the water, a blazing wreck shaken by explosions and Admiral Ozawa is compelled to transfer his flag. The WAKATSUKI comes alongside to starboad and sends a boat. However, the HAGURO moves up and Ozawa soon transfers to her from the destroyer in turn, hoisting his flag at 1606. In the meantime the TAIHO continues to burn furiously and starts to list slightly to port and settle slowly by the head. Oil leaking from the tanks and covering the sea catches on fire, adding to the inferno and peril. Realizing that she can't be saved, Captain Kikuchi orders all remaining personal evacuated.

Sunk: At 1628, still settling upright, leans over to port and dips by the bow, sinking "horizontally" and bodily below the waves on a nearly even keel in position 12-05'N, 138-12'E. Destroyers ISOKAZE, WAKATSUKI and HATSUZUKI rescue over 1,000 officers and men, including Captain Kikkuchi Tomozo; but about 1/3 of the complement - 28 officers and 632 petty officers and men - are lost.




Paul S. Dull. The Imperial Japanese Navy:
"Taiho probably could have been saved, if not for two other factors: her unrefined fuel oil gave off dangerous fumes, and her crew showed poor judgement by maintaining 26 konts and keeping all shafts open to ventilate the ship."

In my opinion both circumstances because of the late stage of the war.

By the way Shokaku got 3 bombs in the battle of the Solomon Sea and four bombs in the battle of Santa Cruz and survived without being in danger of sinking.
In the battle of the Mariana Sea she got 4 torpedos and I think that is enough to sink.

The carriers Junyo, Hiyo, Zuiho, Shoho and Ryujo are all not full warships especially regarding their ability to sustain damage. That is very well known.

So I think yes the japanese damage control is worse than that of the USA but please don't expect the small carriers to be as good as the heavy ones.

The Lexington was also already saved and then blew up, wasn't she?

_____________________________


IJN Chokai

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 33
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/15/2005 4:48:49 PM   
Wolfpack_MatrixForum

 

Posts: 181
Joined: 3/1/2004
From: Raleigh,NC
Status: offline 		This Japanese disaster was completely due to my skill as a WITP player. Who here would be genius enough to lull your oppenent into exposing themselves by allowing 2 of my carriers to be sunk. I am shocked that no one has recognized this.

Now seriously I have one carrier of the three that was hit more seriously and the float damage has been increasing(not 20+ per turn though). It is not in danger of sinking as I am very close to port but if I was as far away as Castor I might have the same issue.

S! to Castor Troy. He has been keeping me on my toes and it has been a very enjoyable game so far. I took what I thought was a big risk by sending those three carriers into battle the next day and it paid off. Lucky me!

< Message edited by Wolfpack -- 7/15/2005 6:58:33 PM >

(in reply to Hoplosternum)
Post #: 34
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/15/2005 5:05:21 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline 		At the end all I can say about this issue is that Paul did a good job in closing in with his carriers! !

But if you see the hits that I´ve taken I think most people could or should understand me if I´m a bit concerned about the outcome when I was 6 x unlucky and all three carriers hit (with moderate damage) go done. Instead of losing this carriers in 43 I lost them in 6/42. The only positive thing for me at the moment is the fact that I didn´t sink his carriers, so he get´s three Essex´ less.

And this is the first time since started playing WITP that I lost 3 Jap CVs to 2 Allied CVs. For a year now I thought that this is impossible.

Paul I´ve just sent you a turn!



< Message edited by castor troy -- 7/15/2005 5:12:44 PM >

(in reply to Wolfpack_MatrixForum)
Post #: 35
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/15/2005 5:31:43 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

But if you see the hits that I´ve taken I think most people could or should understand me if I´m a bit concerned about the outcome when I was 6 x unlucky and all three carriers hit (with moderate damage) go done. Instead of losing this carriers in 43 I lost them in 6/42.


Sounds like you experienced your own Midway....

quote:

And this is the first time since started playing WITP that I lost 3 Jap CVs to 2 Allied CVs. For a year now I thought that this is impossible.


I imagine the Japanese did as well at the same point in the war...

< Message edited by treespider -- 7/15/2005 5:34:57 PM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 36
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/15/2005 5:45:12 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		I, and many others, have always contested Japanese damage control as being a little too harsh on the IJN. Once again, aside from a very few examples such as Kongo, flooding was not the problem and the defining issue between Japanese and Allied damage control, the ability to control fire conflagarations was.

Why can't this be tweaked? Seems to me one just lowers the chance of progressive flooding and increases the chance of fire.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 37
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/15/2005 6:00:32 PM   
Charbroiled


Posts: 1181
Joined: 10/15/2004
From: Oregon
Status: offline 		Why not level the playing field....Allow an option for "Japan Damage Control" which would allow the Japanese the same damage control that the Allies enjoy. This would be an preference option to be toggled at the start of the game. If players want "historical" play, they would leave the toggle off.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 38
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/15/2005 6:26:25 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		As Nick has pointed out above, and more extensively in the UV forum quite a while back, flooding and fire damage are abstracted over a several day period. Following a night action, for instance, IIRL you wouldn't see any fires by the time game control returned to you. They would have been put out by that time or the ship would have already been lost. The game just draws these things out over a longer period. Perhaps to allow for a more immersive effect. I don't know why GG did it that way. In the end, though, I think it works out fine.

From my experience, a Jap ship with less that 50 float damage can survive if it is close to a size 6 port. In many cases I have seen them bring down flooding even with out getting to port. Over 50, though, and things get really iffy. Even under 50 at sea or over 50 in a port, you can have some really nasty die rolls. A lot of it is just luck. I don't think it is out of line.

(in reply to Charbroiled)
Post #: 39
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/15/2005 6:31:23 PM   
Tom Hunter


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline 		Charbroiled,

Giving the Japanese American damage control would be like giving them American planes. We can do it, and I suppose in theory they could have copied American planes and built them, but it just ain't right.

Castor it sounds like you got unlucky. In fear an loathing we hit Zuiho with 5 bombs including a critical in the ammo spaces, then two more bombs the next day, then another one 2 days later. As far as we know she is steaming to Hong kong for repairs.


(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 40
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/15/2005 6:36:27 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline 		I think its luck of the draw. Sometimes you do well others not so. Just like real life.

An example of mine.

Kaga was hit by 5 bombs. The worst she was at was 53/40/0. She took 8 days to reach port but she made it. Good old girl

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 41
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/15/2005 6:50:55 PM   
Charbroiled


Posts: 1181
Joined: 10/15/2004
From: Oregon
Status: offline 		Historically, I agree "it just ain't right", and the basis of my suggestion was a little off-topic, or at least going in a different direction then the original post.

My thinking was that with two equally skilled opponents, Japan WILL lose. The allies just out produce them. My suggestion would allow Japan to go toe-to-toe without the worry of a major ship being sunk because it was sneezed on. I just seems to me (from a game stand point, not historical stand point) that the side that can't afford to lose ships is the side who's ship sink the easiest.

(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 42
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/15/2005 7:26:24 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		It seems about right. Japanese carriers historically did not seem to be very effective at staying afloat.

Anyhow, I don't think it matters too much if the Japanese keep all of their carriers afloat. In the end, it is the loss of pilots that finishes them. What use is a carrier task force if it is stocked with crappy pilots and obsolete aircraft? Think about it. If Japan, had gone into 1945 without losing a single carrier or ship, would they still have had any chance against the onlaught of Allied technology and material. Nope.

It was a good rave, and stimulated some good discussion. However, I don't know if it was worth giving your opponent all that free information about your losses.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Charbroiled)
Post #: 43
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/15/2005 7:49:18 PM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline 		Do you guys realize that the exact opposite point could be made from those of you who hit CVL Ryujo with 7 bombs and 3 torpedoes and she didn't sink?

One battle does not make a valid pool for deciding if Japanese damage control is too bad. In my games vs the AI, I have very rarely seen ships sink from damage that seemed too small. I remember hitting BB Hyuga with two torps off of Buna and she sank. I was VERY surprised by that. Generally, it takes a lot more hits to do them in. Other than that, ships that sink are hit by a lot of ordinance.

I personally think the game has it about right. Except for maybe allied merchants. They shouldn't get the damage control bonus (as per Ron's posts a long time ago).

my 2 cents.

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 44
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/15/2005 8:08:09 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

I personally think the game has it about right. Except for maybe allied merchants. They shouldn't get the damage control bonus (as per Ron's posts a long time ago).


Probably not at the beginning of the war, anyway. Later on, they made big improvements in ship construction with torpedo damage in mind - like mounting engines, etc. on heavy springs so that the shock of an explosion wouldn't do the ship in. Other improvements were also made, and the ships in the 2nd half of the war could take much more damage and survive.

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 45
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/15/2005 9:01:10 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

Spawning carriers tends to make the Allied players care a lot less about losses.


In reality those Essex class carriers would have arrived even if the originals hadn't been sunk. The respawn feature actually pulls carriers out of the Allied side if less than the full amount allowed are sunk.

(in reply to Charles2222)
Post #: 46
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/15/2005 9:09:34 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		I care a lot about losing one of the prewar US carriers. They get replaced, but it TAKES SO LONG. I was sweating a bit when I'd lost three of the six by mid 1942 with no appreciable dings in the Kido Butai. Things are better now by 3/43.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 47
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/15/2005 9:25:25 PM   
doktorblood


Posts: 648
Joined: 2/14/2003
Status: offline 		What build are you playing? Jap damage control in early builds was much worse. I believe the devs made Jap damage control a bit better a few updates back.

_____________________________


(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 48
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/15/2005 9:56:28 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		I would say part of the problem of what is being considered "medium" damage.

"Medium" damage is NOT 50 out of 99. 50 damage (total float, fires, flood), will close your flight deck. A closed flight deck is NOT medium damage. 50 damamge is, "WTF am I still doing out here?!" 50 is CRIPPLED. You better set course for the nearest port at best speed.

Over 30 damage, that's "heavy" damage for me. The battle's over for you. Get home, before it's costs you more than the 6 months in the yards.

"Medium damage", to me is 15 - 20. If you're puttering your CVs around (regardless of nationality), at 20 sys damge, you're either nutts, or better have -really- good reason to be at sea (Yorktown at Midway comes to mind). But with over 20 sys damage, a SINGLE bomb or torpedo hit stands a fair chance at closing your flight deck. You're just tempting fate.

FWIW, my observation on the "pain threshold" for Japanese ships is about 35 float damage. If you've more than 35, you better find some shelter QUICK. For the Allies, it's about 55, when you're hitting 60, you better be close to a big port. It's also a good reason to not stray that far from a friendly anchorage. If you're very far forward (and not within a day's run of an anchorage), 50 float damage is much more likely to be lethal. But if you stay within a days run of someplace you can dispand, that 50 float damage is lot less worrisome (if you actually -DO- run full speed for home, and not tempt fate).

And just throw the barb back about Allies always being more careless about their carriers because the "respawn". Get over it please.
a. If you sink all the Allied carriers, you have free reign of the Pacific. There is nothing to deter you. Enjoy it.
b. If you paste the Allied carriers, that's almost 2000 points, -NOT- including the airgroups. Considering that Japan can now go wherever she likes, your allied counterpart probably won't ever see the replacement CVs, because you're going to beat him on points on January 1st, 1943.
c. The Wasp 2, Hornet 2, Yortown 2, Lex 2 are -not- included in the reinforcement track. I don't see any Japanese players complaining about about that.
d. An Allied player that loses his CVs early, because they were brought to battle early has serious strategic problems to deal with. Maybe in their first PBEM game, an Allied player will think respawn in a valid fall-back position. But anybody who has ever even started a 2nd game as Allies, realizes that losing your CVs is VERY BAD thing. NOBODY does it carelessly. Bum luck, ambushed, stupid plan, or whatever. Those are "legitimate" excuses for losing thier CVs. But I can assure you, that no experienced Allied player is thinking, "Oh well. I just lost 5 CVs. No biggie. They'll come back."

Personally, EVERY ship is important to me. Yes, I even try to save the little Flower Class Corvettes.
-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 49
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/15/2005 9:59:37 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Personally, EVERY ship is important to me. Yes, I even try to save the little Flower Class Corvettes.
-F-


Me too. Unfortunately, I've sunk most of the Japanese submarine fleet, so...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 50
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/15/2005 10:11:20 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

Why not level the playing field....Allow an option for "Japan Damage Control" which would allow the Japanese the same damage control that the Allies enjoy. This would be an preference option to be toggled at the start of the game. If players want "historical" play, they would leave the toggle off.



Well, if you want play balance, why not just turn "Allied Damage Control" OFF?

(in reply to Charbroiled)
Post #: 51
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/15/2005 11:22:13 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		RTRAPASSO's thinking is something I could support. Historically, Japanese Damage Control wasn's as good as the Western Powers..., but their FIREFIGHTING capability was abysmally bad. Which made their carriers (with all that AvGas) very vulnerable. Once a fire took hold, a Japanese Carrier was pretty much doomed.

If you want to talk about the "Zero bonus" being justified (and it probably is), then you have to take the bad with the good. The chance to have an "on/off" switch for several of the Historical realities might be a nice way of dealing with the player agrivation. The only problem with "turning off" all the historical Japanese failings is that it also makes a farce of the victory conditions being base on winning within a time limit.

_____________________________


(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 52
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/15/2005 11:29:35 PM   
Charbroiled


Posts: 1181
Joined: 10/15/2004
From: Oregon
Status: offline 		Come on, that would be way too simple.

I'm not sure, but doesn't the allies still have some advantage with damage control even with that toggle OFF? If not, then your correct, my suggestion is kind of irrelevant

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 53
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/15/2005 11:39:02 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		nope.

_____________________________


(in reply to Charbroiled)
Post #: 54
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/15/2005 11:39:41 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

Come on, that would be way too simple.

I'm not sure, but doesn't the allies still have some advantage with damage control even with that toggle OFF? If not, then your correct, my suggestion is kind of irrelevant



Don't think so, but if i'm wrong some one will chime in!

(in reply to Charbroiled)
Post #: 55
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/16/2005 2:12:04 AM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline 		The big difference was that the US carriers purged their avgas lines with an inert gas such as CO2 so that a broken line or hose wouldn't spray fuel all over. Reduced the flammability of the avgas lines considerably. The Japanese never learned that trick. The first time it was used during battle was at Coral Sea and was credited with saving Yorktown.

IIRC, an aircraft fueler from the USS Saratoga was credited with the idea in 1938 after a plane crashed into one of the aircraft fueling points and nearly started a huge fire because of gas trapped in the lines.

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 56
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/16/2005 4:55:21 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		It should be mentioned in fairness that "Midway" was hardly an example of the Japanese not being able to fight fires. It was an example of what happens when bombs strike carriers with carelessly discarded ordinance and armed and fueled planes on deck....the most vulnerable point of any carrier's existance. With much of their firefighting equipment wrecked by the explosions and more ammo/planes going off fueling the intense fires....the Japanese damage control crews had a losing battle on their hands vs. the flames.

I doubt during the same period, that a US carrier struck similar would have high chances of survival. Even with latewar fine tuned US damage control on hand, the CV Franklin nearly went the same route. She was eventually saved, though she never served again. Then there was Wasp's experience.....also caught at a bad time. Only the weapon used was different.

Contrast Midway with the experiences of Shokaku and Zuikaku.

_____________________________


(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 57
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/16/2005 8:24:50 AM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
snip...

If you want to talk about the "Zero bonus" being justified (and it probably is), then you have to take the bad with the good.

I Couldn't just let this pass:
Mike, buddy, I've followed your posts, which I thought were all pretty good but - let's not go back to "The Dreaded Zero Bonus" again!
Folks the Zero Bonus, along with their greater experiance, is .... oh jeeeze, just weak!

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 58
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/17/2005 4:05:06 AM   
racndoc


Posts: 2519
Joined: 10/29/2004
From: Newport Coast, California
Status: offline 		Its all about die rolls. Im at July 1943 and I just put 8 500 lb bombs and 3 torpedoes in CVL Ryujo and she made it to port 4 days later. In fact, I have had 6 major CV vs CV combats so far and have damaged 8 CVs but so far only one IJN CV has sunk.

(in reply to Hoplosternum)
Post #: 59
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/17/2005 4:21:31 AM   
Gem35


Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline 		I know I am a bit late with my posting, but I am glad the Japs lost those carriers, serves em right . I hope you kick his arse, Wolfpack.

(in reply to racndoc)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   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

4.172