Gamey PT boat tactic ?

[Patbgaming]

I am asking this simply because I do not know if this is something that could have been done in the war.

If say I have PT boats at Pago Pago and I am fighting at Canton. Since it is beyond range of the PT's, would it be considered gamey to have a task force sitting in between to fuel the PT's who would be running to Canton to attack, then back to Pago Pago to rearm ?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

[m10bob]

Not gamey if you do it with this:

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-u ... w/agp8.htm

[spence]

I think it is gamey. Although the AGP could and did serve as a refueling platform when PTs moved their base of operations over long distances using it in this fashion to facilitate PT "patrols" over the distance from Pago Pago to Canton is a bit over the top. IRL the boats would be quite likely to require some repair and refitting after an extended time at sea and even if they were intact the crews would require some period of rest upon arrival at destination. I've been on an 82 ft Coast Guard Cutter (slightly larger than a PT) in "ordinary seas" (defined as seas I probably wouldn't even have noticed on a 300+ ft Cutter) and felt lucky that I got back to shore without any broken bones or sprained muscles.

I'm usually one to criticize some of the fantasy capabilities accorded the IJN in this game and even one to advocate more capability for US PTs but this sort of cruise is a bit over the top.

[CapAndGown]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Not gamey if you do it with this:

I agree, you need to use the Wachapreague to refuel them. [:D]

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: spence

I think it is gamey. Although the AGP could and did serve as a refueling platform when PTs moved their base of operations over long distances using it in this fashion to facilitate PT "patrols" over the distance from Pago Pago to Canton is a bit over the top. IRL the boats would be quite likely to require some repair and refitting after an extended time at sea and even if they were intact the crews would require some period of rest upon arrival at destination. I've been on an 82 ft Coast Guard Cutter (slightly larger than a PT) in "ordinary seas" (defined as seas I probably wouldn't even have noticed on a 300+ ft Cutter) and felt lucky that I got back to shore without any broken bones or sprained muscles.

I'm usually one to criticize some of the fantasy capabilities accorded the IJN in this game and even one to advocate more capability for US PTs but this sort of cruise is a bit over the top.

As the accused "King of AFB's", I agree with Spence. This is gamey..., for the reasons he cites.

[witpqs]

For just re-basing them to your own base it would be fine. Using the technique to operate PT's at long range sounds gamey.

[oldman45]

Its just something that wasn't done and based on that reason alone I would not agree to it.

[Patbgaming]

Thanks everyone !!

I appreciate the info and the nice pics. Luckily the PT's were just "Plan D" and I still have Plans A-C. [:)]

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Not gamey if you do it with this:

I agree, you need to use the Wachapreague to refuel them. [:D]

because some of us were dying to know :

" Wachapreague is a town in Accomack County, Virginia, United States. The population was 236 at the 2000 census. "

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: stuman

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Not gamey if you do it with this:

I agree, you need to use the Wachapreague to refuel them. [:D]

because some of us were dying to know :

" Wachapreague is a town in Accomack County, Virginia, United States. The population was 236 at the 2000 census. "

But....do they have a McDonalds' franchise?[:)]

[Nemo121]

Question though, leaving aside the issue of how often it was done, technically even a DD could have refuelled PTs couldn't they?

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: spence

I think it is gamey. Although the AGP could and did serve as a refueling platform when PTs moved their base of operations over long distances using it in this fashion to facilitate PT "patrols" over the distance from Pago Pago to Canton is a bit over the top. IRL the boats would be quite likely to require some repair and refitting after an extended time at sea and even if they were intact the crews would require some period of rest upon arrival at destination. I've been on an 82 ft Coast Guard Cutter (slightly larger than a PT) in "ordinary seas" (defined as seas I probably wouldn't even have noticed on a 300+ ft Cutter) and felt lucky that I got back to shore without any broken bones or sprained muscles.

I'm usually one to criticize some of the fantasy capabilities accorded the IJN in this game and even one to advocate more capability for US PTs but this sort of cruise is a bit over the top.

As the accused "King of AFB's", I agree with Spence. This is gamey..., for the reasons he cites.

if you do it once or twice, well, I could sure live with it as it is possible. If it would be becoming a common tactic it might be too much for me. Kind of thinking on the Doolitle raid...

[m10bob]

Seriously folks...a number of years ago I owned a book written by Commander(?) Bulkely, and IIRC there were missions in which the PT's were refueled from PBY's..Dunno the circumstances, nor the frequency, but those Packards would eat a lot of fuel..I know the interior of the "cats" was pretty big, and I have no idea how much fuel they might carry, spare..

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
... Using the technique to operate PT's at long range sounds gamey.

But didn't PT boats spirit MacArthur off Batan?

Does anyone know how far the PTs actually took him and his family and where they made landfall?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

For just re-basing them to your own base it would be fine. Using the technique to operate PT's at long range sounds gamey.

The OP said Pago Pago to Canton I. (!!!) Fuel would be the least of your worries. The crews would be dead from multiple blunt traumas long before they got across that kind of open ocean in a PT. I think a lot of players who've never been to sea fail to grasp the power of the ocean and how weak and small we humans be.

[Bullwinkle58]

But....do they have a McDonalds' franchise?[:)]

http://restaurants.post-gazette.com/va/ ... -county/-/

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: witpqs
... Using the technique to operate PT's at long range sounds gamey.

But didn't PT boats spirit MacArthur off Batan?

Does anyone know how far the PTs actually took him and his family and where they made landfall?

Yes....but the really interesting aspect of the flight was the condition of the boats......PT boat engines require a full refitting after a reletively short # of work hours and naturally such a luxery was not available after Dec7 around the PI's. As such by the time of Mac's flight the boats were in sad mechanical shape and could only go a fraction of their max speed....hence the reason why the crews were really worried about running into the enemy.

Problem in AE is that utilizing a tender....you can set up an insta-PT base at any dot hex and not only extend patrol ranges but do the "shuttle" attack tactic whereby PT TF's go in to a nearby contested base hex, shoot it up with enemy TF's (making them expend ammo in the process), the PT TF then retreats to the dot base....insta replenishes and repeats. If you have enough PT's....you can maintain a near constant barrage of PT TF's entering a contested hex. Even if they don't hit anything, the forcing of ammo expenditure forces the blue water surface TF's to retreat to re-arm. It's more than a bit gamey IMO, but legal within the game framework. The lack of degredation from such hard use is absent.

Tactic is so effective that an allied player can effectively 'contest' an enemy landing without risking any actual blue water warships.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: witpqs
... Using the technique to operate PT's at long range sounds gamey.

But didn't PT boats spirit MacArthur off Batan?

Does anyone know how far the PTs actually took him and his family and where they made landfall?

Yes....but the really interesting aspect of the flight was the condition of the boats......PT boat engines require a full refitting after a reletively short # of work hours and naturally such a luxery was not available after Dec7 around the PI's. As such by the time of Mac's flight the boats were in sad mechanical shape and could only go a fraction of their max speed....hence the reason why the crews were really worried about running into the enemy.

Problem in AE is that utilizing a tender....you can set up an insta-PT base at any dot hex and not only extend patrol ranges but do the "shuttle" attack tactic whereby PT TF's go in to a nearby contested base hex, shoot it up with enemy TF's (making them expend ammo in the process), the PT TF then retreats to the dot base....insta replenishes and repeats. If you have enough PT's....you can maintain a near constant barrage of PT TF's entering a contested hex. Even if they don't hit anything, the forcing of ammo expenditure forces the blue water surface TF's to retreat to re-arm. It's more than a bit gamey IMO, but legal within the game framework. The lack of degredation from such hard use is absent.

Tactic is so effective that an allied player can effectively 'contest' an enemy landing without risking any actual blue water warships.

I'm not convinced that this is gamey, any more than having subs continually patrol off a AS or having flying boats operate off a AV. These ships were mother ships. Is it gamey to consider planes off a carrier attacking? Of course not. They are doing what they were designed to do. There are many outrageous things that were done during the war that is considered gamey (that is not allowed) in this game. B-25's off carriers,subs refueling seaplanes,patrol planes attacking other patrol planes, are just a few of them. I don't see PT's operating offensively off a tender as being gamey or unrealistic.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I'm not convinced that this is gamey, any more than having subs continually patrol off a AS or having flying boats operate off a AV. These ships were mother ships. Is it gamey to consider planes off a carrier attacking? Of course not. They are doing what they were designed to do. There are many outrageous things that were done during the war that is considered gamey (that is not allowed) in this game. B-25's off carriers,subs refueling seaplanes,patrol planes attacking other patrol planes, are just a few of them. I don't see PT's operating offensively off a tender as being gamey or unrealistic.

Carrier raids tend to be short affairs lasting at most a day. Extended ops are available but one would nominally expect increasing levels of unservicability. Also, a home carrier represents not a tender, but a full airfield, complete with hangers that shelter, arm, service and overhaul the planes in question.

PT's are much larger and the service and maintenance of them involves more than simply tying up next to a tender, immediately reloading up and then setting off. In terms of the tactic i described. It stretches credability in that the tender is meerely serving as a rearming point in lieu of an actual naval base after which the PT TF's immediately set back off to attack the landing in question. (The current SYS damage system does not represent the wear and tear such an operation would cause).

To use a real game example. This was employed against Joe and I in an attack in Northern waters at Adak. PT Tf's continaully attacked us....causing us to lose off our ammunition while the PT TF's traversed as much as 120-180 miles of pen sea to return to a dot base...rearm, rinse and repeat. In real life....doing even one of these raids (battle and a 240 mile round trip through rough waters) would require not only advance planning but serious maintenance in the aftermath, assuming even no damage from actual combat.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I'm not convinced that this is gamey, any more than having subs continually patrol off a AS or having flying boats operate off a AV. These ships were mother ships. Is it gamey to consider planes off a carrier attacking? Of course not. They are doing what they were designed to do. There are many outrageous things that were done during the war that is considered gamey (that is not allowed) in this game. B-25's off carriers,subs refueling seaplanes,patrol planes attacking other patrol planes, are just a few of them. I don't see PT's operating offensively off a tender as being gamey or unrealistic.

Carrier raids tend to be short affairs lasting at most a day. Extended ops are available but one would nominally expect increasing levels of unservicability. Also, a home carrier represents not a tender, but a full airfield, complete with hangers that shelter, arm, service and overhaul the planes in question.

PT's are much larger and the service and maintenance of them involves more than simply tying up next to a tender, immediately reloading up and then setting off. In terms of the tactic i described. It stretches credability in that the tender is meerely serving as a rearming point in lieu of an actual naval base after which the PT TF's immediately set back off to attack the landing in question. (The current SYS damage system does not represent the wear and tear such an operation would cause).

To use a real game example. This was employed against Joe and I in an attack in Northern waters at Adak. PT Tf's continaully attacked us....causing us to lose off our ammunition while the PT TF's traversed as much as 120-180 miles of pen sea to return to a dot base...rearm, rinse and repeat. In real life....doing even one of these raids (battle and a 240 mile round trip through rough waters) would require not only advance planning but serious maintenance in the aftermath, assuming even no damage from actual combat.

I'll buy that. But rather than say , "No you can never do that!", wouldn't it be better to say, you can only do that for a reasonable time? Isn't this what house rules are for?[&:]