Fuel in cargo space

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Try to describe carbon paper to someone under 40. Or even White-Out. I agree with you on the logistic puzzle. And they did it so FAST.

Of course, part of the answer was they had massive amounts of waste. Mega-tons of gear and supplies shipped to the Pacific that was left, burned, dumped at sea, etc. But when I look at the link I posted and see that we had resources to build USMC recreation centers on the other side of the world, complete with bars, baseball, and juke boxes, how did Japan ever think they were going to win?

They still sell White-Out ya big Moose! [:D]

[Yaab]

Thanks for all the answers. So, for the sake of realism I am quitting the practice of moving fuel as supplies in xAKs.

Now, does the AI move fuel by xAKs?

BTW, it seems the game does not allow you to load an xAK with 5000cargo/200 liquid capacity with fuel ONLY in the liquid space. I tried both ways (supply and fuel) and both spaces are used each time.

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: rustysi
D***... darn you, Symon, there you go again all reason and logic. What are we to do with you.[:D] Now I 've got another practice to change in my game play. All that supply I need to bring to Miri to get the oil facilities repaired, and I can't bring back fuel. Thought I was being efficient. Turns out I was using a 'bad' practice.

Rest easy rustysi. It’s not a ‘bad’ practice. The game allows it, it’s described in the manual, and has penalties associated with it. No harm, no foul. It is an abstraction, after all.

Carrying fuel/oil only on TK/AO is simply one of our Babes house ‘realism’ rules. It’s something that works well in our smaller map, shorter time scenarios, but it takes a total grog to use it GC; It does have a bunch of interesting implications, though.

FYI, the small ‘fuel’ capacity of some xAKs is there because there was often a small “liquid” tank in the hold area. This was for chemicals, solvents, naptha, mogas, lubricants, etc. Rarely, if ever, for bunker fuel, and never for crude. These liquid things are all subsumed as supply, so the most realistic thing is just get rid of ‘liquid’ cargo and add it to general capacity, but that would be a pita, and it doesn’t hurt to just keep it, so …. just load it up with supply.

[Q-Ball]

It makes sense to limit fuel haulage to TK/AO as a HR.

I have to say even before reading this, I rarely used AK to haul fuel, mostly because AKs are not a very efficient way to carry fuel.....they burn alot for what they actually move. As Japan, I only really used it when sending empty AKs from the SRA to Japan, just picked up fuel so they wouldn't be empty. I'll fill that with RESOURCES from now on.

[Yaab]

I guess it is different for Japan, but Allied can freely use this practice.

[IdahoNYer]

ORIGINAL: Symon

Carrying fuel/oil only on TK/AO is simply one of our Babes house ‘realism’ rules.

Frankly never thought about this as an abstraction until this thread. Interesting discussion.

Symon - would love to see the full list of your Babes house 'realism' rules...

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer
Symon - would love to see the full list of your Babes house 'realism' rules...

Oh, gosh. Many of them are built into the small scenario OOBs and won’t make sense for standard or GC play. But there are a few Naval things that might make sense for normal AE, so long as you are a real grog with a high sphincter coefficient.

The first, you know: oil/fuel only on TK/AO. Reasons therefor have been described.

The second is only AP/AK, APA/AKA vessels may conduct amphibious invasions; xAP/xAKs are NOT invited. Obviously this requires some tweaking of IJN ships after the freebie period. They must have a certain mix of xAK-t ships and AK ships. They must have a one-to-one relation of AK ships to their special “shipping engineer” units. That was how they did it. But it requires those special Babes LCUs, so it’s not that applicable to a standard GC game.

BTW, xAPs were used as “transport” ships to get troops (often sans weapons) from point to point. They were NOT, simply NOT, amphib vessels. And if they weren’t, what would one think of an xAK? Can you say doo doo?

The third is that there is no KB. Actually there is a KB but not in the form that the game uses for its point push. All carrier TFs are based on their CarDiv organization. So the KB is actually 3 individual Cardivs sailing in concert. This is good for both sides. Nobody gets a game engine gorilla. It has advantages, for both sides, of bifurcation targets.

These exist as a modality to obviate the “cheat the game” stuff that’s so prevalent. This is only a few, but others are wrapped up in the Babes LCU changes.

Hope this helps. JWE

[geofflambert]

What's the current consensus on using AKs and APs to refuel TFs at sea? I haven't done it much in quite a while, but when I played the allied side I did it a lot.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

What's the current consensus on using AKs and APs to refuel TFs at sea? I haven't done it much in quite a while, but when I played the allied side I did it a lot.

I see nothing wrong in doing so this was a standard practice, DDs in particular where always milking some bigger ship due to their high speed and low fuel storage capability

[IdahoNYer]

Thanks Symon, appreciate the feedback

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

What's the current consensus on using AKs and APs to refuel TFs at sea? I haven't done it much in quite a while, but when I played the allied side I did it a lot.

I see nothing wrong in doing so this was a standard practice, DDs in particular where always milking some bigger ship due to their high speed and low fuel storage capability

I was getting more at the technical abilities to do it, not whether they wanted to. Does doing this use up a lot more ops points? Does weather exacerbate the problems?

[msieving1]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

What's the current consensus on using AKs and APs to refuel TFs at sea? I haven't done it much in quite a while, but when I played the allied side I did it a lot.

IRL, Atlantic convoys generally included one or more tankers for refueling escorts. Escorts didn't refuel from freighters. For Japan, refueling escorts from AKs would have been problematic IRL, since around half of Japanese AKs were coal-burners.

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert
I was getting more at the technical abilities to do it, not whether they wanted to. Does doing this use up a lot more ops points? Does weather exacerbate the problems?

I would let that little lizard lay.

Technically, your general cargo ship had no facilities to transfer fuel in mid-ocean. As msieving1 says, certain Atlantic convoys had refuel tankers, but the game mechanics do not support that kind of refuel. In-game, one may drink from ‘other vessel’ bunker, and that it. It’s a mishmash of abstractions, but it’s what you get.

Let this little lizard alone and let him lay on a hot rock and bask his belly in the sun; having visions of maybe becoming a gecko and making a gazillion bucks, or maybe snaking out Bogart and scoring a date with Bacall.

Hey, it’s an abstraction, yeah?

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Symon

ORIGINAL: geofflambert
I was getting more at the technical abilities to do it, not whether they wanted to. Does doing this use up a lot more ops points? Does weather exacerbate the problems?

I would let that little lizard lay.

Technically, your general cargo ship had no facilities to transfer fuel in mid-ocean. As msieving1 says, certain Atlantic convoys had refuel tankers, but the game mechanics do not support that kind of refuel. In-game, one may drink from ‘other vessel’ bunker, and that it. It’s a mishmash of abstractions, but it’s what you get.

Let this little lizard alone and let him lay on a hot rock and bask his belly in the sun; having visions of maybe becoming a gecko and making a gazillion bucks, or maybe snaking out Bogart and scoring a date with Bacall.

Hey, it’s an abstraction, yeah?

[Yaab]

Thread resurrection.

I was wondering if the Japs converted xAKs to tankers during the war. That would also be handy in the game if you lost too many TKs and have the rule against hauling fuel in xAKs. Found this:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/AtagoM_t.htm

------------------------------------------------------
28 December 1942:
Sasebo Naval Arsenal. ATAGO MARU begins conversion from a cargo-transport vessel to an emergency tanker.

14 February 1943:
The conversion is completed.

--------------------------------------------------

Seems there was a whole subclass of "emergency tankers". Can you convert xAKs to TKs as Japanese in WITP:AE? If so, how much cargo capacity do you lose?

[US87891]

Of course they did. That's why you have the conversion options.

Matt

[GetAssista]

All Std-.. xAKs can be converted to TK

[Yaab]

I have loaded DBB C scenario 28 (GC), first turn as Japan. Went through all Japanese xAKs available. Found no type with an option to convert to TK. I can convert ships to AD, AG, AV, AKV, AKE, AE, AK, PB, CMc, AMc and others, but not TKs. Do the convertible ones come later during the war?

[Grfin Zeppelin]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

I have loaded DBB C scenario 28 (GC), first turn as Japan. Went through all Japanese xAKs available. Found no type with an option to convert to TK. I can convert ships to AD, AG, AV, AKV, AKE, AE, AK, PB, CMc, AMc and others, but not TKs. Do the convertible ones come later during the war?

There are some xAKs with 5800 endurance and 12 knot speed. Those should be convertable in June.

[Shark7]

Hmm, my (admittedly quick) research on the Standard class cargo ships shows that the IJN began using a tank that could be fitted into the cargo holds to allow the storage of fuel/oil. The key thing with these tanks were that they were "modular", meaning they could be installed or removed as the need arose. Not a bad solution to the problem TBH.