|
I usually turn off the secondary mission option for all planes because it mostly leads to losing a shitload of planes because your idiot squadrons decide to random hit a defended airfield.
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:01 |
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:I think you're just trying to throw us off the scent of you landing in San Francisco 2 weeks from now. With Tokyo Bay Fortress leading the charge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
   B-17's pay us a visit.  We take down a Bolo.   We start sweeping Port Moresby – it goes poorly today.   An attack at Chunking costs the Chinese heavily.   No ships attacked today, it looks like the battle is over – but we cost the Allies a good number of ships – 15 confirmed - and a lot of troops – 356 points worth. Not bad for just under a week.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Is that the first time we've seen the A6M3 Zero in action?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
Not bad. Congrats on mauling the Allies Navy some and hopefully thrwarting thier buildup a bit. Good luck with getting the IJN and Army ready for future offensive operations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
   After a dud and three misses, the Pike switches to its deck gun.  The Sweep goes better today.  We get a good raid together today.  I move a squadron from here to Luganville, so they attack here instead. Its almost like they now everything I do. Have our codes been broken?  The Nates do help put some damage on some Liberators though.   Akyab falls to the allies again.  There is not much I can do about Akyab now – once again, the snail like overland movement in this game screws me over. The incoming stack had enough AV to hold the city, but no enough to take it. They shall start the long march south.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Flying a Zero at 40,000 feet must be an interesting experience
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Grey do you leave the units on combat or do you switch them to move when marching? Combat moves take forever, when in move mode they tend to go so much quicker. Also marching into Aykab just plain suck with the river crossing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
CannonFodder posted:With Tokyo Bay Fortress leading the charge. I will call this let's play a win if grey can manage to get Tokyo Bay Fortress to sink, or go on the offencive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
  The bombing of our airfields is becoming more common. I need to get some flak down here.  I'm going to call off the sweeps, wait a few days for replacements, then try a mass bombing run on the airfield.  Appraently supply missions don't automatically cancel even if there are no friendlies to supply.  We took another day of heavy air losses.  I have no idea on this one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:Appraently supply missions don't automatically cancel even if there are no friendlies to supply. lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
"The big man said we've got to drop these supplies that Japanese base, so dammit, that's what we're going to do." Edit: I meant Allied base. Obviously my US bias coming through. pthighs fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Oct 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
pthighs posted:"The big man said we've got to drop these supplies that Japanese base, so dammit, that's what we're going to do." Who's gonna say no to a lovecraftian crocodile octopus monster?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Who's gonna say no to a lovecraftian crocodile octopus monster? Depends, is he Army or Navy? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
25 October 1942 Japanese light cruiser Yura, damaged by air attack near Savo Island, is scuttled.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
pthighs posted:"The big man said we've got to drop these supplies that Japanese base, so dammit, that's what we're going to do." Maybe they were trying to defect? Death to traitors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Still love that avie, wish I'd done a better job of cropping the picture, maybe I'll try again. ... We dropped supplies on a British base? That's the Kamikaze spirit! - the latest maru sunk from fires started by a Submarine deck gun RA Rx fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Oct 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:Appraently supply missions don't automatically cancel even if there are no friendlies to supply. Obviously this is how you win the culture war!
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 11:26
|
|
|
B-17s really are indestructible, aren't they? I don't think we've seen more than a handful get downed by air-to-air combat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
Decoy Badger posted:B-17s really are indestructible, aren't they? I don't think we've seen more than a handful get downed by air-to-air combat. When, at best, you've got a couple of 7.7mm machine guns and a couple of mediocre 20mm cannons, yeah it gets tough downing a B-17.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
American planes having .50 machine guns for the entire tech tree in War Thunder versus the Germans having cannons almost immediately makes a lot more sense when you consider the relative threats they were facing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Decoy Badger posted:B-17s really are indestructible, aren't they? I don't think we've seen more than a handful get downed by air-to-air combat. B17's and of all things British Wellingtons were supposedly absolute tanks to try and down. B17's because they were typical American overbuilt and excellent quality components. Wellingtons because of their internal air-frame design made for a LOT of redundancy if say a cannon shell blew a chunk out of the side 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
The USAAF lost over 4000 B-17s in Europe, and a good number of those to fighters. That's hardly indestructible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
In Europe they very quickly shifted to whole braces of 20mm and 30mm cannons to do that though. Japanese fighters were considerably less well armed, and it showed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
food-rf posted:The USAAF lost over 4000 B-17s in Europe, and a good number of those to fighters. That's hardly indestructible. Though note a lot of those fighters started to have weaponry specifically developed to kill B-17s, since that was one of the problems the Germans were constantly trying to solve. The Japanese, too. "How do we stop these loving planes." was a persistent problem for every American foe during the war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
  Clunk! Thankfully!  The Marines on Lunga just don't know when to give in.  The bombing runs continue.  Our fighters try their best, but they are not built to take down beasts like this.  We just have to hope these damaged planes crash on the way home.  More sacrifices on the alter of imperialism.  The Hankow attacks are costly, but needed – I can't just ignore 80,000 men for ever. I've pulled all the bombers out of Ndeni – their getting blown up for no reason – they are now at Rabaul to support any missions I make from there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
professor_curly posted:In Europe they very quickly shifted to whole braces of 20mm and 30mm cannons to do that though. Japanese fighters were considerably less well armed, and it showed. iirc some of the FW-190 anti bomber variants had up to 8 20mm cannons on them. 2 in each wing and 2 under each wing in pods.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
shalafi4 posted:iirc some of the FW-190 anti bomber variants had up to 8 20mm cannons on them. 2 in each wing and 2 under each wing in pods. Nah, I don't think it ever carried that cannons, but it did carry some cannon gunpods and sometimes swapped out its regular 20mm guns for 30mm variants. They also had wing-mounted rockets they would use outside of defensive gunner range. But that doesn't mean they didn't strap big fuckoff guns to other planes!  50mm cannon for anti-bomber missions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Can anyone explain to me why we are losing so many men in the Hankow attacks when our raw AV outnumbers them almost 2 to 1 and our adjusted AV outnumbers them almost 3 to 1?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:Can anyone explain to me why we are losing so many men in the Hankow attacks when our raw AV outnumbers them almost 2 to 1 and our adjusted AV outnumbers them almost 3 to 1? Ground combat modelling in WitP is relentlessly awful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:Can anyone explain to me why we are losing so many men in the Hankow attacks when our raw AV outnumbers them almost 2 to 1 and our adjusted AV outnumbers them almost 3 to 1? Terrain modifiers. Assaulting for example a mountain or a city is expensive and hard. Especially when there is 80 thousand soldiers with nothing to loose defending it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Heavy Urban specifically gives a 4 times modifier to defenders. Though they are low on supply, they should start collapsing soon regardless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:Can anyone explain to me why we are losing so many men in the Hankow attacks when our raw AV outnumbers them almost 2 to 1 and our adjusted AV outnumbers them almost 3 to 1? :greyhunter:
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Insufficient spirit displayed by not using Shock Attacks, obviously. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Is there any flak that'll stop a B17? I guess with more flak they have to fly higher.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
food-rf posted:The USAAF lost over 4000 B-17s in Europe, and a good number of those to fighters. That's hardly indestructible. Intercepting is easier when you don't have to worry as much about things like fuel capacity and ammo weight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:Can anyone explain to me why we are losing so many men in the Hankow attacks when our raw AV outnumbers them almost 2 to 1 and our adjusted AV outnumbers them almost 3 to 1? If I'm remembering aright, adjusted AV only matters for determining whether you force the other guy to retreat from the hex. Casualties are a function of the individual squads and weapons systems at play. 26 October 1942 The Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands. Aircraft carrier Hornet sinks after absorbing three bombs, two air-dropped torpedoes, and two crashing dive bombers in a strike by Shokaku and Zuikaku, followed later by an additional torpedo from aircraft from Junyo, two more bombs from Zuikaku and Junyo aircraft, multiple torpedoes and numerous five-inch shells from destroyers Mustin and Anderson (in an attempt to scuttle her), and finally four torpedoes from destroyers Akigumo and Makigumo. Destroyer Porter was also lost after being stuck by a torpedo, which may have been launched by submarine I-21, or may have been accidentally deployed by a ditching Avenger.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Nah, I don't think it ever carried that cannons, but it did carry some cannon gunpods and sometimes swapped out its regular 20mm guns for 30mm variants. They also had wing-mounted rockets they would use outside of defensive gunner range. Did some looking because I couldn't remember. Found the variant. quote:Fw 190 A-5/U12 — A special U12 was created for bomber attack, outfitted with the standard 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 17 and 20 mm MG 151 but replacing the outer wing 20 mm MG-FF cannon with two underwing gun pods containing two 20 mm MG 151/20 each, for a total of two machine guns and six cannon. I didn't realize that they remove the outboard 20mm to put the pods on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
shalafi4 posted:Did some looking because I couldn't remember. Found the variant. Hmmm, I didn't recall them using twin-cannon gunpods on the Fw-190s. I imagine they took off the outboard ones due to the wing loading.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:01 |
|
|
Wait they tried to scuttle the Hornet via friendlies shooting it up? It didn't have a more purposeful method of scuttling available (say, propping open all the bulkheads and opening up the seacocks/setting off some demolition charges)?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 22:37
|
|
