Page 16 of 29
RE: War Begins!
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:00 pm
by jrcar
Yes it can be done at major bases, requires at least a level 6 port with naval support, preferably level 7 port.
At start the only one in CentPac or SWPAC is Truk.
Sorebaya is 7, Batavia 6 .
I having an AE also reloads torps on CV's trying to confirm.
A torp is a load cost of 2500, a Level 6 port can reload 700, a level 7 5500. So you need a 6 with a LOT of naval support.
The AE needs to have a capacity of the load size (in this case 2500) or greater, plus supplies, to reload.
I'm moving AE's into theatre. Truk is level 6 but I don't think there is enough naval support there yet. Truk can be built to 7.
Cheers
Rob
ORIGINAL: Elladan
Could you perhaps expand a bit on the possibilities of replenishing carrier's stock of air torpedoes? I see a mention it can only be done in Japan at the moment, what about other places to be conquered/built up soon?
Day 3 and 4
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 2:14 am
by jrcar
A good day for Cathartes
A US sub leaving Bataan hits a mine, and i badly damage another that has the gall to attack one of my TF.
DD Thanet (RN) though comes accross the Miri invasion force...
Day Time Surface Combat, near Miri at 64,85, Range 12,000 Yards
Japanese Ships
APD D-31
TB Kasasagi, Shell hits 5, heavy fires
AMc Wa 19, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
xAK Hokko Maru, Shell hits 2, heavy fires
xAK Zinzan Maru
xAK Kinkasan Maru, Shell hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Giyu Maru, Shell hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAKL Kembu Maru
xAKL Kiko Maru
xAKL Anbo Maru
Allied Ships
DD Thanet, Shell hits 3, on fire
Japanese ground losses:
756 casualties reported
Squads: 11 destroyed, 13 disabled
Non Combat: 14 destroyed, 38 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 11 (6 destroyed, 5 disabled)
DD Thanet later comes accoss a CA SCTF, puts a torp into the CA while she dies... a great outcome for the enemy!
My Zero's decide not to escort a large raid on Clark, and I pay a predictable price (The cause I think was weather, and an issue with not enough supply to fit drop tanks).
Invasion wise I take Kota Bharu, and a reinforced Wake Invasion takes the island, although some ships are badly beaten up.
My forces begin unloading at Ambon, it should fall next turn. These are forces usually assigned to Legapasi.
Next turn should see the invasion of Guam, and I should arrive at Alor Star.
RE: Day 3 and 4
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 2:17 am
by jrcar
Here is the status in Malaya, ships still unloading, a big chaneg from stock
RE: Day 3 and 4
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 2:20 am
by Chad Harrison
ORIGINAL: jrcar
AMc Wa 19, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
Was there any previous damage to this little ship? Or did one 5" shell put her under?
If so, I love the new and much more realistic damage routines!
RE: Day 3 and 4
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:14 am
by jrcar
Yes, the damage model is much changed, one or two bomb hits usually sink a merchant, and a couple of shell hits. The two AK with heavy damage sank the next day.
There are a lot more ships now though, so loosing a few is sort of Ok.
RE: Day 3 and 4
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 6:26 am
by Dili
What size (tonnage) were the ships and the bombs that hit them?
RE: Day 3 and 4
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 8:51 am
by jrcar
In turn 2 I increased HA-32 and HA-34 production, doubling both. The HA-32 is used in Sally and betty, amogst others, the Ha-34 in the Helen.
I was due to fly to Darwin tomorrow, however bushfires have cut me off from the airport, and two of my travelling companions have to stay to protect their properties, both are threatened by fire. I'm Ok being in a largish town, but it is very smokey outside.
Cheers
Rob
RE: Day 3 and 4
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 10:37 am
by Chad Harrison
ORIGINAL: jrcar
Yes, the damage model is much changed, one or two bomb hits usually sink a merchant, and a couple of shell hits. The two AK with heavy damage sank the next day.
There are a lot more ships now though, so loosing a few is sort of Ok.
Very cool! Will be nice to have a much more realistic approach to ship damage.
Thanks for the reply.
RE: Day 3 and 4
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 10:59 am
by veji1
this will mean longer and better planning for amphibious operations and a lot more escorting duties for warships : A lone jap CL or AMC wondering in the american shipping lanes will be able to massively hurt poorly escorted convoys.. This will mean in turn that many of the CVEs and DEs the USN used for escort duties will actually have to do this... Very positive...
RE: Day 3 and 4
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 11:38 am
by kokubokan25
Sinking a ship with only two shells it's a realistic aproach to ship damage? Well, i will see future surface combats to cheers.
RE: Day 3 and 4
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:25 pm
by Erik Rutins
ORIGINAL: fremen
Sinking a ship with only two shells it's a realistic aproach to ship damage? Well, i will see future surface combats to cheers.
If it's a tiny ship like a AMc (coastal mine sweeper), yes, that could be realistic.
RE: Day 3 and 4
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:46 pm
by W T Door
ORIGINAL: fremen
Sinking a ship with only two shells it's a realistic aproach to ship damage? Well, i will see future surface combats to cheers.
Actually, it is. Merchant vessels are typically built with lighter structure (fewer frames and so forth) to reduce hull tonnage and boost profitable weight and volume. They also lack the extensive watertight compartmentation and damage control organisation of naval vessels (they have these but to a far lesser degree and size, they are, after all designed to haul goods, not fight). It's entirely possible to sink a small or lightly constructed vessel with a near miss by opening the seams between plates or strakes and cause unrecoverable flooding.
RE: Day 3 and 4
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:52 pm
by kokubokan25
ORIGINAL: W T Door
ORIGINAL: fremen
Sinking a ship with only two shells it's a realistic aproach to ship damage? Well, i will see future surface combats to cheers.
Actually, it is. Merchant vessels are typically built with lighter structure (fewer frames and so forth) to reduce hull tonnage and boost profitable weight and volume. They also lack the extensive watertight compartmentation and damage control organisation of naval vessels (they have these but to a far lesser degree and size, they are, after all designed to haul goods, not fight). It's entirely possible to sink a small or lightly constructed vessel with a near miss by opening the seams between plates or strakes and cause unrecoverable flooding.
Yes, i agree in some specific cases (small ships, small xAKs), but not in general. Reading jrcar comment seems as sinking ships with only small number of shells will be the norm in AE. I'm in panic thinking about...
RE: Day 3 and 4
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:54 pm
by castor troy
the question will nevertheless be if the naval engagement routine will keep attacking a PT boat with 8inch+ guns after it was already hit by 58 shells...
RE: Day 3 and 4
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 1:21 pm
by Erik Rutins
ORIGINAL: fremen
Yes, i agree in some specific cases (small ships, small xAKs), but not in general. Reading jrcar comment seems as sinking ships with only small number of shells will be the norm in AE. I'm in panic thinking about...
No, it's not the norm. Battleships are as durable as ever - but on the lower end merchant ships, barges, PT boats and tiny coastal ships are more vulnerable than they used to be.
RE: Day 3 and 4
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 2:24 pm
by Dili
The shear volume of commercial ships makes them possible of survival if the cargo is not explosive.
Here is an example known of Australians and New Zelandeers for sad reasons :
http://www.aifpow.com/part_1__missing_i ... /a._by_sea
...On that same day, the Royal Navy submarine "Turbulent" (formerly named the "Trieste") commanded by Lt. Commander "Tubby" Linton, VC, was on patrol off Novarino. About 3 o'clock that afternoon, it sighted the convoy and despite its strong protective cover, "Tubby" Linton attacked, with a salvo of three torpedoes narrowly missing the "Sestriere" but hitting the "Nino Bixio" in Number 1 hold forward, in the engine room amidship and glancing off the rudder, but doing enough damage to render it useless. No. 1 hold was crammed with Allied POW, in the main Australian, New Zealand and South African and the torpedo burst through the skin of the ship and exploded inside. Less than half of the 300 men in this hold survived. The 2/28th Infantry Battalion of the AIF lost 29 men alone from the 39 Australians killed. 118 New Zealanders died.
Barton Maughan (A3 p764) has slightly different figures: "Of the 504 originally in No.I hold, only 70 remained".
The survivors were kept on the ship for four days to carry up as many dead as practical and to identify them if possible. During this period a few Italian army biscuits were their only food, but, as a survivor put it, "everyone was too dazed by the shock to worry about food". Of the 201 Australians on board at Benghazi, 37 were killed or drowned. After a short stay at Corinth, the uninjured were shipped to Bari in Italy, where they entered Campo 75, then being used as a main transit camp for British prisoners from North Africa.
The "Saetta" took the stricken "Nino Bixio" in tow and beached her in the harbour at Navarino...
RE: Day 3 and 4
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 2:51 pm
by Erik Rutins
No doubt, but as far as I recall there were actually some bugs we found in original WITP that made them even more durable than they should be. I haven't seen an AK or AP go down to a single small shell hit - the larger the ship, the more it takes, but an equivalent size military ship will be more durable. Combination of construction as well as crew experience with damage control.
Regards,
- Erik
RE: Day 3 and 4
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 pm
by traskott
Well...with a bit of real surface combat in the AAR we'll see how combat model really works [:)].
Any chance ?
RE: Day 3 and 4
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:35 pm
by vettim89
ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
No doubt, but as far as I recall there were actually some bugs we found in original WITP that made them even more durable than they should be. I haven't seen an AK or AP go down to a single small shell hit - the larger the ship, the more it takes, but an equivalent size military ship will be more durable. Combination of construction as well as crew experience with damage control.
Regards,
- Erik
One of my big gripes about WITP was that merchant shipping was too durable. I have hit AK's with three or four 500 lb bombs and not have them sink. A DD would have a hard time absorbing that kind of punishment with trained DC teams and warship watertight intergrity. We have also seen a medium to large size AK take multiple torpedo hits. Not only should two or more TT sink most MS but it should do it on the spot. I acknowledge the concerns about making them too fragile but it needed improving. Keep in mind that a single 225 lb warhead took out the
Atlantic Conveyor in the Falklands conflict. She displaced 14,500 tons which is bigger than any AK in the Japanese inventory. Making MS historically vulnerable will add a level of sanity to both sides offensive operations - Japan in 1941-42 and the Aliies in 1943-45.
RE: Day 3 and 4
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:39 pm
by Cathartes
My view of the DD Thanet, which after this heroic action, moved on and ate a torpedo off Serasan suffering heavy damage.
