Page 357 of 788
RE: With the Wren Detachment
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 1:26 pm
by Cap Mandrake
ORIGINAL: Alfred
Was the need to split Torpedoman's Mate Malarkey's evidence into two separate posts (#7118 and 7119) necessitated by a break in court proceedings to bring the "Observors" back to order and regain their equilibrium after the shocking revelations, or was it due to the well known Australian legal procedures of the time of always adjourning for lunch.
In any case, I think a relevant notation in the transcript would be appropriate.
Alfred
Observors:
There was an objection by the defence when it was discovered that the court reporter had spelled "Observers" wrong and then copy and pasted it twice even before copy and pasting had even been invented. [:D]
Also the JAG has a prostate problem.
RE: With the Wren Detachment
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 1:30 pm
by Cap Mandrake
Heavy air losses. The loss of B-24's seems inflated but there were certainly many damaged planes. I took one squadron off line but we are going back today. This is war, after all.
Darwin runway damage at 29%.
I moved some F4F's to Gove to sweep over Darwin but some idiot forgot the drop tanks.
Most of the Zero losses were over PH and the Oscars over India.
RE: With the Wren Detachment
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 1:43 pm
by Cap Mandrake
Ready or not....
RE: With the Wren Detachment
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 3:57 pm
by zuluhour
Neato, I love hide and seek....[;)]
RE: With the Wren Detachment
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 4:05 pm
by Chickenboy
ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake
Ready or not....
Reminds me of a scene from "A Fistful of Dollars". The man with no name is proving himself alternatively to the Rojos and then the Baxters, showing his skills in a test of his benefactors to the highest dollar bidder for his services.
On one foray, he walks past a very happy undertaker. The man with no name has provided him with steady business. He strides past the undertaker, removes the stub of a cigar from his mouth and says, "get three coffins ready."
After the inevitable shootout goes horribly awry for the Baxters, four of them lie dead on the ground. The man with no name passes the undertaker whilest departing the scene. "My mistake. Four coffins.", he apologizes.
Seaborne invasion of Darwin? Better get an extra few ready.
I still don't understand why you don't come in by land from Katherine and parts South. That's your low cost option here, in my opinion.
RE: With the Wren Detachment
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 4:31 pm
by Cap Mandrake
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake
Ready or not....
Reminds me of a scene from "A Fistful of Dollars". The man with no name is proving himself alternatively to the Rojos and then the Baxters, showing his skills in a test of his benefactors to the highest dollar bidder for his services.
On one foray, he walks past a very happy undertaker. The man with no name has provided him with steady business. He strides past the undertaker, removes the stub of a cigar from his mouth and says, "get three coffins ready."
After the inevitable shootout goes horribly awry for the Baxters, four of them lie dead on the ground. The man with no name passes the undertaker whilest departing the scene. "My mistake. Four coffins.", he apologizes.
Seaborne invasion of Darwin? Better get an extra few ready.
I still don't understand why you don't come in by land from Katherine and parts South. That's your low cost option here, in my opinion.
Because WE are the Eastwood character, that's why. [:)]
Besides, it's more fun. By ra way, we ARE coming in from Katherine. We have a Brit Div and about 4 Australian Armoured units 20 miles out. The idea is to trap LYB ground units and exterminate them
in situ. We may also have temporary carrier superiority, their Bettys have been hammered...yada, yada, yada.
What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
RE: With the Wren Detachment
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 4:37 pm
by sprior
I still don't understand why you don't come in by land from Katherine and parts South
This is why:
RE: With the Wren Detachment
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 4:41 pm
by sprior
Work in neonatal ICU
Having been a customer of a NICU you have my unreserved admiration (but I reserve the right to take the piss). I couldn't take the emotional battering.
RE: With the Wren Detachment
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 4:50 pm
by sprior
Besides, it's more fun.
Yep, if (when) we cock things up it's only electrons, unlike 30 years ago tomorrow when a bunch of 'tards decided my mates needed a trip
down south.
RE: With the Wren Detachment
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 5:00 pm
by Cap Mandrake
ORIGINAL: sprior
Besides, it's more fun.
Yep, if (when) we cock things up it's only electrons, unlike 30 years ago tomorrow when a bunch of 'tards decided my mates needed a trip
down south.
Santa Maria! It's been 30 years? [X(]
RE: With the Wren Detachment
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 5:04 pm
by sprior
Yep and I remember every damned day. I was in Faslane the day Conqueror got home.
RE: With the Wren Detachment
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:32 pm
by Itdepends
That's a very large amphib taskforce. 88 ships? Hope they don't see combat (or collide during unloading).
Got any minesweepers in the op OOB?
Good ruck.
RE: With the Wren Detachment
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:41 pm
by khyberbill
Got any minesweepers in the op OOB?
It appears as if they have 88.
RE: With the Wren Detachment
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 9:36 pm
by Chickenboy
ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake
What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
I dunno. The mind boggles. Say, hypothetically, you could have 1 and 3 aircraft respectively in two of your air combat TFs. That would be a good place to start.
I only play the Japanese side in the CG, but I'm led to believe that it *is* more customary to put aircraft carriers of some sort in one's air combat TF. [:'(]
RE: With the Wren Detachment
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 9:49 pm
by Chickenboy
ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake
Because WE are the Eastwood character, that's why. [:)]
From a different Eastwood movie altogether:
Harry Callahan: Well, I just work for the city, Briggs!
Lieutenant Briggs: So do I, longer than you, and I never had to take my gun out of its holster once. I'm proud of that.
Harry Callahan: Well, you're a good man, lieutenant. A good man always knows his limitations...
RE: With the Wren Detachment
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 9:54 pm
by Chickenboy
ORIGINAL: sprior
I was in Faslane the day Conqueror got home.
How was life in (the) Faslane? Surely make you lose your mind? Everything-all the time?
RE: With the Wren Detachment
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:18 pm
by Onime No Kyo
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake
What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
I dunno. The mind boggles. Say, hypothetically, you could have 1 and 3 aircraft respectively in two of your air combat TFs. That would be a good place to start.
I only play the Japanese side in the CG, but I'm led to believe that it *is* more customary to put aircraft carriers of some sort in one's air combat TF. [:'(]
Customs...bah! [:-]
RE: With the Wren Detachment
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 11:05 pm
by Cap Mandrake
ORIGINAL: khyberbill
Got any minesweepers in the op OOB?
It appears as if they have 88.
Admiral Lord SPrior, Admiral Lord SPrior, they are making fun of us again!
We do have some YMS up ahead. They will refuel at Horn Is. We have a few DMS with the Death Star that could be broken off.
RE: With the Wren Detachment
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 11:10 pm
by Cap Mandrake
ORIGINAL: Itdepends
That's a very large amphib taskforce. 88 ships? Hope they don't see combat (or collide during unloading).
Got any minesweepers in the op OOB?
Good ruck.
Yes, 88 ships is one TF is problematic but we are a bit short on escorts. We can break up the big Darwin landing group when the DD's and CL's at Merauke join up. We can also pick up some AM's along the way to use as escorts.
The biggest threat will not be mines but the LYB surface forces (
Musahshi, Yamato and at least 3 CA's), Bettys from Wyndham and Timor and the carriers.
RE: With the Wren Detachment
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 11:12 pm
by Cap Mandrake
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake
What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
I dunno. The mind boggles. Say, hypothetically, you could have 1 and 3 aircraft respectively in two of your air combat TFs. That would be a good place to start.
I only play the Japanese side in the CG, but I'm led to believe that it *is* more customary to put aircraft carriers of some sort in one's air combat TF. [:'(]
Yes, I saw that too. I'm not sure what the problem is...probably a stack overflow for the 64 bit processor because we have so many planes.