Page 142 of 405
RE: Burma Bungle!
Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 10:28 pm
by Lowpe
Aug 19, 1943
After taking it on the chin lately, Japan strikes back at Perth. That sleek long distance Raider sneaks into Perth, getting strategic surprise!
Looks like two dinky AMCs protecting a convoy...strike! Strike hard now!
RE: Burma Bungle!
Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 10:32 pm
by Lowpe
Banzai!
RE: Burma Bungle!
Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 10:34 pm
by Lowpe
Iboats' supporting the Perth raid catch some ships fleeing!
RE: Burma Bungle!
Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 10:36 pm
by Lowpe
I-30 is a busy sub!
RE: Burma Bungle!
Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 10:44 pm
by Lowpe
In the Central Pacific Zeroes mysteriously appear over Kusaie, whose runways have been bombed into the stone age over the last two months. Are those carrier markings on the Zeroes? But Allied search doesn't find anything...
RE: Burma Bungle!
Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 10:47 pm
by Lowpe
More unescorted bombers...this time over Umboi Island!
RE: Burma Bungle!
Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 10:59 pm
by Lowpe
No major KB strike, and the KB will now flee back, still not spotted...but lots of Yanks spotted by dive bombers etc., so he knows something is in the area!
The Tone is spotted of western Oz...but she is so speedy a get away is pretty certain!
RE: Burma Bungle!
Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:01 am
by Lowpe
Tomorrow I buy out another division for the defense of the Marianas....
Scrubbed my sub attack on Ramree...simply too much Allied ASW there....
Putting together some of the upgraded E ships into good hunter killer groups to test out their new ASW weapons...
Some CLs are trying to nail some of the Allied picket ships...
KB heading out of trouble hopefully...
The Tone steaming back to the SRA...another raider force with a different disposition heading to station off Perth...
Really short naval pilots...horrendous early game losses, coupled with early game expansion of air groups to monstrous sizes. I have to experiment to see if I can downsize an air group. I have some naval squadrons that are huge and are also unable to split into thirds for whatever reason, and I simply refuse to fly a group larger than 42 currently. My choice, no HR about it. Early on I disbanded one of the monster groups hoping that would reset it's size...no joy.
RE: Burma Bungle!
Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:44 am
by ny59giants
Putting together some of the upgraded E ships into good hunter killer groups to test out their new ASW weapons...
Not having played Japan for some time, I would ensure that a ship has radar in each group. Don't remember if those "E" have them. If not, add a DD to a group. Second, spend some PPs on leaders for these ships. Many have lousy leaders and they should cost about 3 PPs for a Lt. and maybe more for an aggressive TF leader.
RE: Burma Bungle!
Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2015 11:14 am
by mind_messing
Really short naval pilots...horrendous early game losses, coupled with early game expansion of air groups to monstrous sizes. I have to experiment to see if I can downsize an air group. I have some naval squadrons that are huge and are also unable to split into thirds for whatever reason, and I simply refuse to fly a group larger than 42 currently. My choice, no HR about it. Early on I disbanded one of the monster groups hoping that would reset it's size...no joy.
The number of IJN replacement pilots is pretty poor in comparison with the IJA - it's got to the point that all my IJN pilots fresh from the flight school go right into training squadrons. The number of replacement pilots is the bottleneck for me at present - I'm not training as many IJN pilots as I'd like because I can graduate more trained pilots than I get rookies to replace them.
However, it does mean I can make sure the pilots that do graduate are pretty sharp in terms of skills. An interesting inversion of the IJN's problems in real life.
The best stop-gap for you is as follows:
- Where possible, let IJA air groups take over from IJN. Oscars instead of Zeros and Lily DB's instead of Val/Judy.
- Use the freed up groups to train rookies.
- If you've excess floatplane groups, they can train every skill bar NavT. If you don't absolutely need the floatplane squadron doing something, then have it train fighter or bomber pilots.
If your IJN is badly behind the pilot curve, you need to let the IJA squadrons take the weight till you recover. If you need to, strip pilots from floatplanes to become fighter or bomber pilots. Having too few trained Jake pilots won't make much difference to the Allied war effort, but not having enough fighter or bomber pilots will.
RE: Burma Bungle!
Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2015 1:36 pm
by Lowpe
ORIGINAL: ny59giants
Putting together some of the upgraded E ships into good hunter killer groups to test out their new ASW weapons...
Not having played Japan for some time, I would ensure that a ship has radar in each group. Don't remember if those "E" have them. If not, add a DD to a group. Second, spend some PPs on leaders for these ships. Many have lousy leaders and they should cost about 3 PPs for a Lt. and maybe more for an aggressive TF leader.
Good points! I already switched leaders (aggression first, naval second), but putting in a DD with radar and good ASW platforms makes sense too![&o] Some,most, E's do eventually get radar 11/43; 3 inch A/S Mortars are the new weapon.
RE: Burma Bungle!
Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2015 1:40 pm
by Lowpe
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
Really short naval pilots...horrendous early game losses, coupled with early game expansion of air groups to monstrous sizes. I have to experiment to see if I can downsize an air group. I have some naval squadrons that are huge and are also unable to split into thirds for whatever reason, and I simply refuse to fly a group larger than 42 currently. My choice, no HR about it. Early on I disbanded one of the monster groups hoping that would reset it's size...no joy.
The number of IJN replacement pilots is pretty poor in comparison with the IJA - it's got to the point that all my IJN pilots fresh from the flight school go right into training squadrons. The number of replacement pilots is the bottleneck for me at present - I'm not training as many IJN pilots as I'd like because I can graduate more trained pilots than I get rookies to replace them.
However, it does mean I can make sure the pilots that do graduate are pretty sharp in terms of skills. An interesting inversion of the IJN's problems in real life.
The best stop-gap for you is as follows:
- Where possible, let IJA air groups take over from IJN. Oscars instead of Zeros and Lily DB's instead of Val/Judy.
- Use the freed up groups to train rookies.
- If you've excess floatplane groups, they can train every skill bar NavT. If you don't absolutely need the floatplane squadron doing something, then have it train fighter or bomber pilots.
If your IJN is badly behind the pilot curve, you need to let the IJA squadrons take the weight till you recover. If you need to, strip pilots from floatplanes to become fighter or bomber pilots. Having too few trained Jake pilots won't make much difference to the Allied war effort, but not having enough fighter or bomber pilots will.
All good points! And yes, the bottleneck is new replacements -- Never enough.
RE: Burma Bungle!
Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2015 2:01 pm
by Lowpe
This is Japan's best E ship for ASW currently. Just added the mortar.
RE: Burma Bungle!
Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2015 2:42 pm
by Lowpe
I found one E class ship currently with surface radar; another has air radar. Here are some sub chasers getting surface radar.
RE: Burma Bungle!
Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2015 2:44 pm
by obvert
ORIGINAL: ny59giants
Putting together some of the upgraded E ships into good hunter killer groups to test out their new ASW weapons...
Not having played Japan for some time, I would ensure that a ship has radar in each group. Don't remember if those "E" have them. If not, add a DD to a group. Second, spend some PPs on leaders for these ships. Many have lousy leaders and they should cost about 3 PPs for a Lt. and maybe more for an aggressive TF leader.
Good points. The radar is not something I considered with ASW groups as I had day/night search all over the areas they operated in.
Unfortunately the Japanese commanders are thin for E/PB types. You have a plethora for DDs but the Es are often left with guys with 40-50 naval and 50 aggression. Thee are a few good ones but not many. For the TF commander you can do better.
RE: Burma Bungle!
Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2015 10:14 am
by Lowpe
August 20, 1943
No night bombing.
Twin light cruisers, find one of the countless Allied picket ships in the Pacific, this one north of Nauru. These single ship pickets, sometimes as small as a pt boat, sitting idly in the big blue expanse of the ocean surely points to the unbelievable wealth of America. I could find a good use for that ship, and no mistake!
Anyhow, at night, the sub chaser manages to escape.
RE: Burma Bungle!
Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2015 10:18 am
by Lowpe
During daylight, the tale is a different one.
2 victory points. sigh. Not a good risk reward or fuel tradeoff. But perhaps something will happen tomorrow that makes this worthwhile?
RE: Burma Bungle!
Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2015 10:21 am
by Lowpe
Allied subs are isolating the supply line from Truk to Ponapa and Kusaie. They are hunting the KB, and no snide remarks on my part for outguessing them this time, the KB is not there, although he knows it is somewhere close. Maybe. Surely, Allied commanders are re-examining their search arcs wondering where the flaw is!
RE: Burma Bungle!
Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2015 10:25 am
by Lowpe
A rather good day, except for leaving the float fighters on station at Ponape, which is swept by Yank fighters. 13 float fighters gone for some op losses in return. My bad. Bombers will be next.
The light cruisers are spotted well north of Nauru...will the Allies try to catch them? Danger lurks in the Pacific, but for whom?
RE: Burma Bungle!
Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2015 10:52 am
by Lowpe
No joy hunting subs, lets add some radar to the mix and see what happens. Plus, better leadership!
Two of the Es are Etorofu -- very nice. The W-19 isn't as good, no mortar, but still has type 2 DCs and for this ship at least a very aggressive commander.
I will base some ASW planes closer too.
