|
Ron Jeremy posted:From the rules perspective, is it then a better result to heavily damage a USN CV as opposed to sinking it? You'd have to damage it so much it was in dock for more than a year.
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:08 |
|
|
RZApublican posted:Does CB mean Cruiser-carrier or Battlecruiser-carrier? As in CB-1 and CB-2? Large cruiser. The Alaska and the Guam respectively. Pretty much battlecruisers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
The smarter thing to do is to focus on British and Dutch ships first and then shift your attention to the US in 1944!
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
If we're worried about the Automatic Ship replacements rule in the manual, according to this thread that rule isn't a thing anymore so the U.S doesn't get free replacement carriers. Unless Grey modded it back in or changed the options. Dreamsicle fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Holy poo poo. They had to refuel the Midway every 3 days?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
jaegerx posted:Holy poo poo. They had to refuel the There's a reason that we switched to nukes for our carriers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
jaegerx posted:Holy poo poo. They had to refuel the When operating at sea the ship was refueled every three days, burning approximately 100,000 gallons of oil a day Wow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
And now you know why fleet oilers are so valuable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
i81icu812 posted:When operating at sea the ship was refueled every three days, burning approximately 100,000 gallons of oil a day Now think about the Midway serving from 1945 until 1992.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
This suspense is killing me. I wanna see convoy carnage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
The logistics of the pacific war continue to amaze me. gently caress the carriers. Hit the oilers. E: lovely derail but what does that Russian carrier burn in fuel and how often does it have to refuel? jaegerx fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
Dreamsicle posted:If we're worried about the Automatic Ship replacements rule in the manual, according to this thread that rule isn't a thing anymore so the U.S doesn't get free replacement carriers. Bunch of whiny IJN fanboy scrubs... They should be grateful the game doesn't allow US modding and for radar to be even deadlier than it is. If Grey wants to win I want it to be a mountain of two hundred allied CVs, BBs and Cruisers and hundreds more Fletcher DDs! RA Rx fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
One of the many jobs my grandfather did when he was in the Navy was serving as an AA gunner onboard a fleet oiler. Probably the best job he ever had, because standard procedure was apparently to be as far away from the rest of the fleet as possible and absolutely never, ever actually shoot the AA gun and attract attention to yourself. They weren't allowed to be around the rest of the fleet when just sailing around for obvious reasons. He said that his ship refueled the Indianapolis, although obviously he didn't know the significance of that at the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
I served on a modern fast supply ship back in the day. It was weird thinking of sleeping on that much bullets on bombs and gas. If we got hit, it would have been a pretty big boom. Also, unreps are pretty cool. We also took our POVs on board once for a longish trip to San Diego.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:I served on a modern fast supply ship back in the day. It was weird thinking of sleeping on that much bullets on bombs and gas. If we got hit, it would have been a pretty big boom. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMs4IJQVRYM
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
Pretty much. Sweet dreams everyone!
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
RA Rx posted:They should be grateful the game doesn't allow US modding From what I can gather, this should be possible through the Scenario Editor unless I'm misunderstanding your meaning.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
   Lets start the day with an aperitif – an oiler.   A couple of survivors run into the Kiddo Butai – and ehre we see the Hiyo shooting up a destroyer. We take no damage.  Its not a good time to be on a light crusier.  The next waver gets more hits in.   Dammit, we lost that troop convoy! I wonder where they went. I'll have a look around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
No! My beautiful carnage, why have you forsaken me?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
All of those targets and no confirmed kills?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 08:15
|
|
|
An AO and two CLs is cool but I'd rather drown 10,000 pixelmarines.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 08:38
|
|
|
IJN post battle assement means those cruisers, battleships and destroyers were actually 3 fishing boats, a patrol boat and 2 extremely large fur seals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:
Always good to see an oiler kill (except when it's one if ours). That lead me to look up what Japan's fleet replenishment was like, and I learned about the Shiretoko Maru http://www.combinedfleet.com/Shiretoko_t.htm In just over two years, she survived six separate submarine attacks (and one air raid) for a total of ten claimed Torpedo hits and survived, only to be finally sunk by B-29s in a raid on Singapore RIP Japan's finest damage control party
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 11:33
|
|
|
i81icu812 posted:All of those targets and no confirmed kills? Not even a sighting! I'll get them though!
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 12:17
|
|
|
Grumio posted:Always good to see an oiler kill (except when it's one if ours). My theory is that it had nothing to do with damage control and that instead the sea recoiled from its sheer ugliness
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:My theory is that it had nothing to do with damage control and that instead the sea recoiled from its sheer ugliness Clicked expecting Yamashiro, was disappointed by a perfectly normal looking ship.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
  We lose more planes to bombers.   The Bettys find a troopship – there are carriers in the region, but the bad weather may prevent them from launching.  They do in fact get planes into the air, and the hits begin to mount.  This has not been as bloody as I hoped.  A light cruiser kill!
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Aww man, it's like the Allies don't want those free swimming lessons we've been so selflessly giving away all this time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
6 March 1943 Japanese destroyers Minegumo and Murasame, sunk in a night action in the Blackett Strait off Kolombangara by an American task force consisting of the Cleveland-class light cruisers Cleveland, Montpelier, and Denver (recognize any of these names?) and three destroyers. Japanese patrol boat No. 34 (formerly destroyer Susuki), collided with target ship Yakaze off Kavieng, never repaired.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:6 March 1943 BTW if anyone is interested in the play by play of these nighttime destroyer knife fights in the Solomons, I can't recommend Japanese Destroyer Captain highly enough. They're the memoirs of one of the most decorated Japanese destroyer captains of the war, and they're gripping reading. The change from the IJN ruling the night to the USN implementing radar fire control and turning the tables is amazing and terrifying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Does that gun icon on the hiyo mean it was the one who scored those two hits on Mahan?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Does that gun icon on the hiyo mean it was the one who scored those two hits on Mahan? At least one hit, as each shot is its own line at the bottom.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Wait, did one of our carriers successfully engage an enemy warship with its guns? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Fuzzy McDoom posted:Wait, did one of our carriers successfully engage an enemy warship with its guns? "Drive closer, I want to hit it with my sword."
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
The naval doctrines in this timeline are gonna be SO messed up. When are we gonna start mounting 16in guns on carriers?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:The naval doctrines in this timeline are gonna be SO messed up. When are we gonna start mounting 16in guns on carriers? THE ISE BBV IS THE FUTURE.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Whatever superheavy nuclear battleship abomination the IJN comes up with after its inevitable victory will be absolutely amazing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
Fuzzy McDoom posted:Wait, did one of our carriers successfully engage an enemy warship with its guns? Obviously they were too close for missiles. Had to switch to guns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:08 |
|
|
Nuclear powered, railgun armed, 150k ton Yamato II will truly be a glorious sight
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 23:48
|
|