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: VICTORY

 
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: VICTORY Page: <<   < prev  34 35 [36] 37 38   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: VICTORY - 8/8/2006 8:12:53 PM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

Andy, there is no way someone may edit your save and give you a thousand hellcats and transfer a thousand pilots from USAF in the pools?


Andy, I see this as a very gamey solution. IRL you couldn't say, "Hey God, can you give me 1000 more Hellcats?" As far as pilots go, the USN would have (and did) draw pilots from other similarly equipped groups to replace their losses in front line units. Yorktown drew from VF-42 to fill out VF-3 just prior to Midway. We can't do this in the game very well unless you split groups and disband them into others. That may be an option here. How many ground based Hellcats units do you have?

The US never transferred pilot from one service to the other. Given the rivalry between the Navy and the Army, I could just hear the Generals now. "Admiral, you need what!?! Ha Ha Ha!" Besides training Army pilots to operate from carriers would take as long as it does to train green Navy pilots. It took several weeks to train Doolittle's fliers and all they had to do was take off from a carrier! (Ok, a slightly different situation, I know)

Look at the overall situation. I don't know how many carriers you have participating in this operation but I'm sure that they are still fully operational in terms of aircraft and trained pilots. Sure, PzB trains his pilots in China but for every unit training, that is one less that you face at the front. He too took tremendous losses and must retrain his pilots. His green pilots arrive with an experience of 20 or less, yours are at 30. That's still an advantage to you. Your timeline may have to be adjusted but this is not a gamebreaker IMO. Use the Corsair units to temporarily fill in for training units.

One question concerning CVERs. When they refill, do you have control over how many pilots and aircraft come aboard? Or do they automatically fill to the 54 maximum? If you can control how many come aboard, you can keep the levels lower so that you can train at least some of them.
Anyways, just my thoughts.

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 Fishbed)
Post #: 1051
RE: VICTORY - 8/8/2006 10:08:57 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Chez I am going to limit this response as I am in a hurry to get on with the turn as you will see on my next post.

But while in principle I agree with you about amending games in progress (and am not seeking this for this game) I am owed nearly 2000 hellcats that the US had historically in pools just now that are present as Nightfighter Variants or dont exist and I am restricted from using my other carrier capable front line fighter by the historical view that Corsairs didnt deploy to carriers as we stand I would kill to be allowed to downgrade carrier sqns to Wildcats.

I have broken the Japanese Air force not once or twice but multiple times but Chinese training and massive flexible production makes it all for nothing.

I have ZERO ground based Hellcats

In this game as it plays just now anyone that uses more than 1 or 2 CVRs is kiddding themselves on as they suck up to many pilots.

Sorry to be blunt but the Hellcat replacement rate is chicken **** and I am very very unhappy about the allies getting screwed this way.

Re my pilots I will manage it it is an issue that has arisen because of the un ending stream of trained chinese pilots in a timescale that is totally over the top I am in fact extremely annoyed by this but I will go on to win despite it because I am having a lot of fun.

The fact is having done the hard work at the Marianas with my forces 2 days from landing I realised it was mission impossible despite my preparation and I lost a lot of planes and pilots getting to that conclusion.

I then switched targets and jumped to far to fast at Zamboanga and got punished for it kudos to PZB but it is a SAD day that the loss of 200 aircraft from US pools the "arsenal of democracy" is not worth sinking 5 Jap CV's. Apologies but this is really bugging me now.

If I use Corsairs its Gamey if I dont I am screwed I think its safe to say I am NOT happy.

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 1052
ENEMY IN SIGHT - 8/8/2006 10:10:24 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Ooooh




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1053
RE: ENEMY IN SIGHT - 8/8/2006 10:21:34 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 4031
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline 		Intresting turn ahead indeed.

How are your pilots and squadrons now at your fleet carriers? High on morale and not fatigued?

If you still got plenty of fighters available and your CV bombers are ready than this is a good chance.

You destroy and heavy damage his battle fleet will buy you more time. I mean you could use LBA's to cover advances once enemy BB's and heavy fleet is neutralized. That would buy you time to raise some fighters into the pool. (I do agree that Hellcat production is quite unreasonable) I have actually docked my Hellcats and rested them a while in my PBEM againts FDR 7/1944. I think I have around 800 in the pools but the big fights are still to come.

Downside to this is naturally that there are plenty of airfields around this region controlled by Japanese. IF that is his battle fleet than most likely he will have LBA support available.

I mean the gains are enourmous if you are succesfull than again....!!! As I said intresting situation!


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1054
RE: ENEMY IN SIGHT - 8/9/2006 12:48:51 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		OK my fleet has moved to the SW one hex to consolidate.

All my TF's are ordered there.

I had previously ordered a concentration due west but I figured its to risky.

I thought about going in after him but to do so would leave my fleet uncovered and my Sqn are to understrength to risk it....

This time

I will be doing some analysis of my airforce in the next few weeks so I will let you know how bad it is.

I may disband a few PBY Sqns and PB4Y Sqns to free up some navy pilots am I correct in saying that if I move them to San Fran and withdraw the sqns they will appear in my pool ?
Andy

(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 1055
RE: ENEMY IN SIGHT - 8/9/2006 2:26:28 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		I decided not to go in after PZB's heavies to risky and sure enough they came out after me !!!! One of my TF's didnt get the orders to go to the new re concentration point looks like a draw to me.

I have managed to hold off using USMC Corsairs on carriers at present and am still restricting myself to the three USN Sqns that I have.

After the Borneo operation I will need to send my carriers for a 2 month refit. The carriers currently on the West Coast will take there place but it wont be enough for the Malaya op so it is postponed.

I have cut down my operational scope and am only going for south Borneo now.

Its irritating to have prepped for 6 months and only have 2 small bases on Sulawesi to show for it but so be it.

I have a good argument for using some USMC Sqns on carriers soon (as they did operate historically on anti kami duty but we are not there yet)

Andy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat at 35,62

Japanese Ships
CA Maya, Shell hits 4
CA Chokai
CL Kitakami, Shell hits 9, on fire
CL Oi, Shell hits 29, on fire, heavy damage
DD Asashimo, Shell hits 16, on fire, heavy damage
DD Kiyoshimo
DD Hayashimo, Shell hits 20, on fire, heavy damage
DD Akishimo, Shell hits 10, on fire, heavy damage
DD Natsushio, Shell hits 2
DD Hayashio, Shell hits 4, on fire

Allied Ships
BB Maryland, Shell hits 6, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
BB California, Shell hits 8
CA Salt Lake City, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
CL Australia, Shell hits 2
CA Astoria, Shell hits 5
DD Miller, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Nicholas
DD Owen
DD Philip, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Picking, Shell hits 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat at 35,62

Japanese Ships
DD Matsu, Shell hits 42, and is sunk
DD Momo
DD Take, Shell hits 9, on fire, heavy damage
DD Ume, Shell hits 9, and is sunk

Allied Ships
BB Maryland, Shell hits 1, on fire
BB California, Shell hits 3
CA Salt Lake City, on fire
CL Australia
CA Astoria, Shell hits 1
DD Miller, on fire, heavy damage
DD Nicholas
DD Owen
DD Picking

Day Air attack on TF at 34,63


Allied aircraft
Spitfire VIII x 18
Beaufighter Mk 21 x 19


No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
CL Oi, Bomb hits 8, on fire, heavy damage

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x Beaufighter Mk 21 bombing at 2000 feet
1 x Beaufighter Mk 21 bombing at 2000 feet
3 x Beaufighter Mk 21 bombing at 2000 feet
4 x Beaufighter Mk 21 bombing at 2000 feet
3 x Beaufighter Mk 21 bombing at 2000 feet
4 x Beaufighter Mk 21 bombing at 2000 feet

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1056
RE: ENEMY IN SIGHT - 8/9/2006 2:38:05 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		High morale, low fatigue just low on pilot quality and my carriers are at about 80% capacity. The real pinch point for my Hellcats will come next time I go to port and all the CVR's fill up.

I bottled it sinking PZB's battle line is not worth the pilots it would cost.

Most of my CVR's are now totally empty of planes so my carriers are a little fragile.

I am having a real debate with myself as I dont want to use Marine Corsairs on Carriers until they historically deployed which was about October, PZB is ok if I do but it feels a little cheap to use them.

On the other hand I am short a lot of Hellcats. For the moment I will refrain I over extended have lost a lot of pilots and got my head chopped off but I will recover.

(p.s.I have been whining quite a lot about the Hellcat situation recently so I am going to shut up about it.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: aztez

Intresting turn ahead indeed.

How are your pilots and squadrons now at your fleet carriers? High on morale and not fatigued?

If you still got plenty of fighters available and your CV bombers are ready than this is a good chance.

You destroy and heavy damage his battle fleet will buy you more time. I mean you could use LBA's to cover advances once enemy BB's and heavy fleet is neutralized. That would buy you time to raise some fighters into the pool. (I do agree that Hellcat production is quite unreasonable) I have actually docked my Hellcats and rested them a while in my PBEM againts FDR 7/1944. I think I have around 800 in the pools but the big fights are still to come.

Downside to this is naturally that there are plenty of airfields around this region controlled by Japanese. IF that is his battle fleet than most likely he will have LBA support available.

I mean the gains are enourmous if you are succesfull than again....!!! As I said intresting situation!




(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 1057
Review and reflect - 8/9/2006 12:45:15 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		OK I review the last few months and what do I see.

Hydra complete success broke the back of resistance in New Guinea sank 4 Jap flattops and heavily attrited IJAAF (or so I thought !!!)

Thunderchild a tactical defeat as I didnt go through with the operation against Marianas but it was probably the right decision to pull off again wiped out the IJAAF and IJNAF although the cost was high in pilots and frames.

Minotaur achieved all its ojectives took some more advanced real estate which will grealty assist the next leap forward although the method was a little cheesy.

OK at this point I was playing well and all is ok. IJAAF is destroyed as is half of the Jap carrier fleet. So far so good.

I had plenty of fuel and supplies forward dumped at Wasile and Rabaul and all is good.

Then we come to my next series of ops

What I should have done with 20/20 hindsight was unloaded my assault TF's perhaps at Rabaul if I really did want to change the axis of advance and sent more than 3 fleet carriers to West Coast for refit. I chose not to instead I just changed direction on my TF's and sent them towards the Philipines if you look further back the PI was the one place I categorically said I was not going to go near for all the reason that PZB proved 2 many bases in close range where surface raiders can stage and to many ground forces.

Now in hindsight I should have taken more time between the failure of the Marianas op and my next move but I suspect I got frustrated and impatient and I let it overcome my normal grinding good sense.

Zamboanga was an opportunistic grab that I knew would activate Kamizazes but I really did think I could hold. Kudos to PZB for retaking it it cost him 5 more flat tops but it was worth it to him.

My series of future ops - North Borneo, West PI, Singapore was all cloud cukoo land god know what I was smoking when I came up with that little brainstorm.

OK well I am restricting myself to a more limited operation . My fleet will land the 80,000 men of 8th Armies 3rd US Corps onto South Borneo this will happen the specific base may change but it will happen.

After they are ashore I will if neccessary bring the 110,000 men of 1st Amphib Corps right in on top of them one objective at a time with overwhelming force a trried and tested method none of this namby pamby risky deep strike business.

My intention is to secure South Borneo and then bury PZB under a cloud of LBA protected by PT Boats Sqns at each of the bases while my fleet takes a 2 month sabbatical on the West COast to rest and recoup.

When I come back I will have the 3 west coast carriers and 2 newly arrived Essex's all with fully trained pilots to augment my forces I have taken a knock but we are far from out of the fight.



Andy





(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1058
RE: ENEMY IN SIGHT - 8/9/2006 3:12:32 PM   
saj42


Posts: 1125
Joined: 4/19/2005
From: Somerset, England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

High morale, low fatigue just low on pilot quality and my carriers are at about 80% capacity. The real pinch point for my Hellcats will come next time I go to port and all the CVR's fill up.


Surely if the VR squadrons are set to 'no replacements' they should NOT fill up

IRL did the replenishment CVE carry 108 a/c? I think I might edit the database for future games and set the units from 'wings' to 'squadrons' - less a/c immediately available but not such a drain on the pools - with opponents prior agreement of course

_____________________________


Banner by rogueusmc

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1059
RE: ENEMY IN SIGHT - 8/9/2006 4:57:57 PM   
Akos Gergely

 

Posts: 733
Joined: 4/8/2004
From: Hungary, Bp.
Status: offline 		Sorry to disrupt the thread but can anyone point me to the predecesor of this AAR (I mean Nomad's AAR up till 7/43). I can't seem to find it, or has it just simply vanished into cyberspace?

Thanks,


_____________________________



My blog: https://warshipprojects.com/

(in reply to saj42)
Post #: 1060
RE: ENEMY IN SIGHT - 8/9/2006 5:08:19 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 4031
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline 		Here is how the game started by Wobbly.


http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=680156&mpage=1&key=India



...than ADavidB took over.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=811541&mpage=1&key=Wobbly

(in reply to Akos Gergely)
Post #: 1061
RE: ENEMY IN SIGHT - 8/9/2006 5:10:20 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 4031
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline 		...and here is the thread by Nomad.


http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=886652&mpage=1&key=PzB&#903588

(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 1062
Corsairs - 8/9/2006 6:10:46 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		My proposal on Corsairs reasonable or not ?

> I have decided I will not be using Marine Corsair Sqns on my Carriers
> at present. It would be unfair and slightly gamey to do with this
> quickly after the Kami threat was determined.
>
> IRL the allies did end up using Marine Sqns in this way to combat
> Kamis placing 10 Sqns on USN Flat tops. As a result I would propose
> that as of 1st September 44 I be allowed to place up to the 10 historc
> Marine Corsair Sqns on Carriers but only F4U 1D's not F4U's.
>
> 3 months feels like the right command and control loop for the kami
> threat to be recognized and preventative measure to be taken.
>
> Is this acceptable I seem to have caused another round of WW3 on the
> whole Corsair of carrier issue on the boards !!!!

(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 1063
RE: Corsairs - 8/9/2006 8:18:28 PM   
MkXIV


Posts: 343
Joined: 6/4/2005
From: North Georgia
Status: offline 		I really don't see why this is unreasonable. Look at it this way, He is ordering his planes to freak'n fly into your ships.... and some people think that putting Corsairs on Carriers is odd


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

My proposal on Corsairs reasonable or not ?

> I have decided I will not be using Marine Corsair Sqns on my Carriers
> at present. It would be unfair and slightly gamey to do with this
> quickly after the Kami threat was determined.
>
> IRL the allies did end up using Marine Sqns in this way to combat
> Kamis placing 10 Sqns on USN Flat tops. As a result I would propose
> that as of 1st September 44 I be allowed to place up to the 10 historc
> Marine Corsair Sqns on Carriers but only F4U 1D's not F4U's.
>
> 3 months feels like the right command and control loop for the kami
> threat to be recognized and preventative measure to be taken.
>
> Is this acceptable I seem to have caused another round of WW3 on the
> whole Corsair of carrier issue on the boards !!!!




_____________________________

F4U Corsair; When you Absolutely, Positively need to kill every freaking Zero in a 40 mile hex....

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1064
RE: Corsairs - 8/9/2006 8:27:41 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		According to the Marine Corps Aviation Website the main reason the Navy didn't put Marines on carriers was that they'd already filled them up with Navy pilots and planes.
(The Marine aviators were somewhat annoyed at being "left behind" after the end of the Solomons Campaign essentially left them with nothing much to shoot at within range of their bases).

Obviously in this game you do not have the problem of no place to "fit" Marines on your carriers.

(in reply to MkXIV)
Post #: 1065
RE: Corsairs - 8/9/2006 8:30:43 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		Also according to the Marine Aviation Website the Commandant got the Navy to agree to provide a CVE Division for his aviators sometime in mid-44 but they didn't actually get it up and running til May of 45 off Okinawa.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 1066
RE: Corsairs - 8/9/2006 8:31:28 PM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

He is ordering his planes to freak'n fly into your ships.... and some people think that putting Corsairs on Carriers is odd


The issue is a historical one. The US put F4U-1 Corsairs onboard the USS Essex when she was commissioned in 1943 however the aircraft wasn't suitable to carrier ops due to its very poor low speed characteristics and its propensity to bounce on landing. That meant the chances of a hook skip were greatly increased. Plus its vicious stall characterisitics in the groove meant greatly increased ops losses.

The US removed them from carriers and gave them to the Marines while they worked on a solution for the carrier based Corsairs. By the fall of 1944, they had modified the Corsair for better carier performance and began placing them into carrier units.

The question in Andy's game is whether placing Corsairs on carriers at this point would be gamey. My perosnal opinion is a strong yes and no. If the squadron is equipped with F4U-1Ds, I say use it on carriers. That is the modified carrier version. If it is the F4U-1, I say no due to its poor carrier performance.

Andy, use the F4U-1D on carriers as you refit groups with it.

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 MkXIV)
Post #: 1067
RE: Corsairs - 8/9/2006 11:28:40 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Almost all of my Sqns are upgraded I am talkign to PZB about it at present.

OK this next turn my Carriers are restricted to range 2 I dont want to waste any pilots

B29's are hitting several targets around Sulawesi

The fleet goes forward

I am not committing to a target yet Tarakan or Samarinda are both viable I will make the decision when I get there !!!!!

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 1068
RE: Corsairs - 8/10/2006 3:14:41 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		OK quiet turn I move a little closer my LR Search aircraft pick up the IJN Surface fleet sitting just out of range.

I have peformed an audit of the fleet units (ignoring CVE's) currently operating off of Borneo

OK

Fighters Max is 699 and I currently have 554 operational fighters with the fleet (438 Hellcats, 57 F4U1D's, 13 Corsair VI and 66 FM 2's) so c 80% capacity I have 1 54 plane replenishment group with the fleet that will lift the total to 87% ready there are 688 pilots available in sqns at moment with average xp of 72 (lowest is VF 2 on Lady Lex at 62xp highest is 803 Sqn on Formidable with 85 xp) with the airgroups embarked.

Dive Bombers Max is 249 current strength 188 and 258 Pilots so 75% capacity all Helldivers. I have no replenishment Groups left with the fleet but will bring forweard one of the 2 gps currently operating around Noemfoor and several Marine Helldiver units are ready at bases in Northern NG tpo rotate in as required. Ave xp is 75

TB Max is 208 I have 109 available and 170 pilots so readiness 54%  I have 1 replenishment Gp of 56 TBM's that has flown in to a replensihment Carrier and should lift me back to 75% readiness but I need to be carefull with my TB's. Ave XP is 76

Between Saratoga, Yorktown, Intrepid and Bellau Wood all in refit on the West Coast there is another 242 aircraft with average xp of 75. (mixed types)

Lastly I have 4 Navy Helldiver Sqns, 6 Torpedo Sqns and 3 Hellcat Sqns totalling about another 350 naval aircraft that are currnetly beached and pilots moving towards Rabaul where I am going to concentrate my other Sqns.

I also have 4 USMC Night Fighting Hellcat Sqns that can perform day cap they are either with the fleet or moving towards Rabaul.

Basically the fleet is in ok shape but this is my last batch of pilots.

Replenishment Gps exist witht he fleet 54 FM2's, 56 TBM's and 56 F6F's

On other Duties 54 FM2's capping Entiwok for some unknown reason, Bombing Noemfoor 108 Helldivers all other replensihment gps are empty at present and will need to be refilled and trained after conclusion of this operation.

Andy

< Message edited by Andy Mac -- 8/10/2006 3:16:13 AM >

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1069
RE: Corsairs - 8/10/2006 12:40:05 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Bugger a 36 plane Sqn I thought were TBM's are actually Helldivers that means only 73 TBM's in the fleet they really suffered against KB.

Even the 56 plane replenishment gp will only lift it to 120 given the casualties they will take against BB's that is nasty. My CVE's all have about 9 each but most of the CVE's are on convoy escort duty now.

During the refit period to come I will reorganise all my CAG's to try and reharmonise them as they have became a little disjointed.

Andy

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1070
RE: Corsairs - 8/10/2006 6:59:10 PM   
MkXIV


Posts: 343
Joined: 6/4/2005
From: North Georgia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

He is ordering his planes to freak'n fly into your ships.... and some people think that putting Corsairs on Carriers is odd


The issue is a historical one. The US put F4U-1 Corsairs onboard the USS Essex when she was commissioned in 1943 however the aircraft wasn't suitable to carrier ops due to its very poor low speed characteristics and its propensity to bounce on landing. That meant the chances of a hook skip were greatly increased. Plus its vicious stall characterisitics in the groove meant greatly increased ops losses.

The US removed them from carriers and gave them to the Marines while they worked on a solution for the carrier based Corsairs. By the fall of 1944, they had modified the Corsair for better carier performance and began placing them into carrier units.

The question in Andy's game is whether placing Corsairs on carriers at this point would be gamey. My perosnal opinion is a strong yes and no. If the squadron is equipped with F4U-1Ds, I say use it on carriers. That is the modified carrier version. If it is the F4U-1, I say no due to its poor carrier performance.

Andy, use the F4U-1D on carriers as you refit groups with it.

Chez



We are in agreement here on this, I meant yes to the F4U-1D and no for the F4U-1, sorry if there was some confusion.


_____________________________

F4U Corsair; When you Absolutely, Positively need to kill every freaking Zero in a 40 mile hex....

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 1071
RE: Corsairs - 8/10/2006 7:01:53 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		I am already using the three USN F4U1D sqns but I will hold off for a while on using marines.

As you can see from tha bove analysis my Fighters are in resonable if not perfect shape and this will improve when the last Hellcat CVR Gp replenishes to bring the other sqns up to strength.

I have decided after getting my TF's ashore to withdraw all carriers and screen with >10% Sys to West Coast for an extended refit.

This is long overdue and will give time for my Sqns to rebuild.

Andy

(in reply to MkXIV)
Post #: 1072
RE: Corsairs - 8/10/2006 9:05:03 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 4031
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline 		Propably wise move to send to WC. US CV's will be in better shape that way and they are ready for the important battles ahead.

Just be careful though with the invasions. As I said earlier Japanese have quite a few good airbases nearby.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1073
RE: Corsairs - 8/10/2006 9:29:37 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline 		Hi Andy,

Can you do me a favor and post a screenshot of your aircraft replacement pools with fighters being the predominate air frames shown?

Thanks,

Jim

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1074
ITS BALIKAPAN - 8/11/2006 12:37:52 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		OK the fleet is going in !!!!

Plan attached last turn was relatively quiet


(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 1075
RE: ITS BALIKAPAN - 8/11/2006 12:38:55 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		oops




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1076
RE: ITS BALIKAPAN - 8/11/2006 12:47:24 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Jim there you go




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1077
RE: ITS BALIKAPAN - 8/11/2006 12:48:03 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		And 2




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1078
RE: ITS BALIKAPAN - 8/11/2006 1:00:28 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Last one no fighters but the top pools




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1079
RE: ITS BALIKAPAN - 8/11/2006 1:02:22 AM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline 		Thanks Andy,

So for the US I count these as first line fighters:

F4U-1.....150
P-38J.....180
P-47D.....90
F6F.....144
F4U-1D.....100

For a total first line fighter production as of July 1944 of 714 for the US.

Did I miss any others you think qualify as first line fighters given the date?

Jim

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1080
Page:   <<   < prev  34 35 [36] 37 38   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: VICTORY Page: <<   < prev  34 35 [36] 37 38   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

1.922