Page 3 of 3

RE: I400 -Sieran TT attack, yes they do work

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:52 am
by Cavalry Corp
20/3/44

I400 detected and damaged by allied ASW 7 SYS, 26 FLT , 7 ENGINE - time to head fro Japan

ASW attack near Belep Islands at 110,152

Japanese Ships
SS I-400, hits 3

Allied Ships
YMS-241
xAK Michael Goulandris
xAK Rona
xAK Boero
xAK Queda
xAK City of Yokohama
xAK Adrastus
xAK Masula
xAK West Notus
SC-1068
SC-984

SS I-400 is sighted by escort
I-400 diving deep ....
SC-1068 fails to find sub and abandons search
SC-984 fails to find sub, continues to search...
SC-984 attacking submerged sub ....
SC-984 is out of ASW ammo
SC-984 fails to find sub, continues to search...
SC-984 fails to find sub, continues to search...
SC-984 fails to find sub, continues to search...
SC-984 fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub

But she launched the planes - but lost one - so that makes one left
Morning Air attack on TF, near Belep Islands at 110,153

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 16 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Japanese aircraft
M6A1 Seiran x 2

Japanese aircraft losses
M6A1 Seiran: 1 destroyed by flak

Allied Ships
xAK Barbara Olson

Aircraft Attacking:
1 x M6A1 Seiran launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo


RE: I400 -Sieran TT attack, yes they do work

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 2:13 pm
by Dili
Overall a good mission but floatplanes are favored by this game.

RE: I400 -Sieran TT attack, yes they do work

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 2:37 pm
by Cavalry Corp
No more Seiran until October but I have changed a couple of small factories to try and speed up
I have I 401 arriving in 8 days.

What would be another FP that is realistic to load on these subs...

yes they sank 2 ships and damaged 2 others ( and tied up a lot of allied ASW and 2 CVE and a CV one CVE was sunk). I did not place one of the reports by mistake.

I find FP mostly very fragile in the game...

RE: I400 -Sieran TT attack, yes they do work

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 7:53 pm
by rustysi
What would be another FP that is realistic to load on these subs...

Not sure as I haven't seen anything about how the Seiran was stowed. I imagine the Glen would fit, but it really doesn't have the same capabilities. The Glen when stowed on the subs that carried her came apart like a jigsaw puzzle. The I-400's were a different beast, actually two hulls that were joined. Needed to be that way to accommodate the large hanger for the A/C. I would imagine that the A/C would at least need some sort of folding wings, and I don't know if the Japanese float planes had this capability.

RE: I400 -Sieran TT attack, yes they do work

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 10:19 pm
by BBfanboy
ORIGINAL: rustysi
What would be another FP that is realistic to load on these subs...

Not sure as I haven't seen anything about how the Seiran was stowed. I imagine the Glen would fit, but it really doesn't have the same capabilities. The Glen when stowed on the subs that carried her came apart like a jigsaw puzzle. The I-400's were a different beast, actually two hulls that were joined. Needed to be that way to accommodate the large hanger for the A/C. I would imagine that the A/C would at least need some sort of folding wings, and I don't know if the Japanese float planes had this capability.
The pontoons, struts, wings and (I think) the propeller had to be disassembled to stow them in the hangar. Jakes would be too large and gamey to use them (Range 10 is just too much capability) but I would not object to a player using Petes which are only slightly larger than the Glen, have the same range, and could possibly have been modified to have removable parts for sub hangar stowage.

RE: I400 -Sieran TT attack, yes they do work

Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2016 10:36 am
by Cavalry Corp
I agree a Pete or a Glen sounds fine.

RE: I400 -Sieran TT attack, yes they do work

Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2016 7:56 pm
by Dili
A Glen is okay a Pete is gamey if i am correct that it doesn't fold wings so can't go inside the hangar. Pete was not designed for sub operation.

RE: I400 -Sieran TT attack, yes they do work

Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2016 9:19 pm
by BBfanboy
ORIGINAL: Dili

A Glen is okay a Pete is gamey if i am correct that it doesn't fold wings so can't go inside the hangar. Pete was not designed for sub operation.
I know that, but I said " .... could possibly have been modified to have removable parts for sub hangar stowage." Thus I would not think it too gamey if my opponent did that. This applies only to the I-400 type subs, not the regular I-boats carrying Glens. Basically I figure a Pete and a Seiran are similar in size. The Pete just needs some mods.

RE: I400 -Sieran TT attack, yes they do work

Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2016 6:24 pm
by Dili
Any removal parts makes an aircraft heavier so with less performance. Also that depends if the design allows that.