|
They always say Chinese food isn't very filling.
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 02:54 |
|
|
   The bombs keep falling.  I wonder where these guys were going?   Could we be nearing an end here?   The carriers will be in range of Tarawa tomorrow. Lets see who is still in the area!
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Hankow has no beginning, Hankow has no end. Hankow is, has been, and ever will be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
Those cooks and clerks are really putting up a fight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
19 March 1943 British escort destroyer Derwent, torpedoed in harbor at Tripoli, beached, salvaged, never repaired.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
  The bombs keep falling, but at least our ships have arrived to take away the planes.   The Kido Butai arrives at Tarawa, and it is all I could have hoped for – we catch the Marines loading for their next target.  Other incoming ships are also sunk.  The Chinese AV at Hankow has collapsed, we are finally into the endgame! We then get reports that the units there are surrounded!  Carrier supremacy once again pays out. And we're killing Marines, some of their most combat effective troops. Over two hundred points worth of troops were killed today.  Then there are the shipping losses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Savage. Good work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
About how many troops is 200 points worth?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
If anything, the loss of 250 guns and 150 vehicles might be even worse than losing 3,000 men.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
For the loss of exactly one plane, you obliterated what has to be a division-sized sealift of marines and probably destroyed the majority of the forces they used to take Makin. I'd call that a good day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Didn’t see the first shark for about a half-hour. Tiger. 13-footer. You know how you know that in the water, Chief? You can tell by lookin’ from the dorsal to the tail...Very first light, Chief, sharks come cruisin’ by, so we formed ourselves into tight groups. It was sorta like you see in the calendars, you know the infantry squares in the old calendars like the Battle of Waterloo and the idea was the shark come to the nearest man, that man he starts poundin’ and hollerin’ and sometimes that shark he go away… but sometimes he wouldn’t go away.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Victory on land and at sea, everything's coming up Japan!
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:If anything, the loss of 250 guns and 150 vehicles might be even worse than losing 3,000 men. Depends how useful the game codes guns for island hopping. I could definitely see them being a big loss on the holding-on to poo poo front, what with all the shore defence sniper bullshit we saw early war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Nice to see we're back on track. San Francisco by Christmas?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
 This is always what I imagine when things go right on the ocean
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
amazing
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
goatface posted:Depends how useful the game codes guns for island hopping. I could definitely see them being a big loss on the holding-on to poo poo front, what with all the shore defence sniper bullshit we saw early war. Guns aren't the same as CD guns, naturally.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Guns aren't the same as CD guns, naturally. Oh, of course.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
I guess they'll have to call the floating supermarket something else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
20 March 1943 Japanese AMC Bangkok Maru, torpedoed near Jaluit in the Marshall Islands by US submarine Pollack.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
For the naval historians. If the US Navy lost carrier superiority at Midway, would they have not attempted an offensive such as Tarawa we see here? I kind of was under the assumption that the Guadalcanal campaign was an offensive experiment given the US gained the upper hand at Midway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
US carriers haven't been doing so hot this war, but I think they'd still recognise the importance of air superiority.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
The US AI has been getting thousands of troops sunk via air attacks in rather pointless amphibious assaults. Yes, it's pretty safe to say actual military commanders in WW2 wouldn't be doing this, or they'd find themselves replaced in relatively short order.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
There might be some kind of a panic response in this alternate timeline. 'US must do something to stop the spread of the Yellow Peril!' It is arguable that the Australian campaign in New Guinea was exactly this, also the whole Burma Chindits and the Doolittle raid. Without an active island campaign it would look like the mighty USA was doing bugger all to help in the Pacific theatre.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
goatface posted:US carriers haven't been doing so hot this war, but I think they'd still recognise the importance of air superiority. Well, they did lose 6 carriers with 2 probables...
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
Cartoon posted:There might be some kind of a panic response in this alternate timeline. 'US must do something to stop the spread of the Yellow Peril!' It is arguable that the Australian campaign in New Guinea was exactly this, also the whole Burma Chindits and the Doolittle raid. Without an active island campaign it would look like the mighty USA was doing bugger all to help in the Pacific theatre. That was more the inter-service rivalry. It wasnt that the US must do something, but MacArthur saying "the army must do something!" But the army in the pacific was at the mercy of being at the far end of the globe and hard to supply as well as being the #2 in the Germany first plan. Also army air was way less effective than this game would have you believe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
Wow nice way to start off the ocean-going campaign season. The Allies aren't exactly having a great time with their shipping, are they?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
A bit of an aside, but I'm looking for players for my RPG group
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
   We start by killing an oiler.  The carriers play with their food.  This is a disastrous engagement!  The larger wave of bombers fares no better.  Go for the troop ships you fools!  I suppose depriving them of supplies is also useful.  That's a lot of destroyed vehicles, maybe even a hours production in the states!  Their ships have scattered, and we are hunting them down.  This means we get hugely wasteful allocation of planes like this.  They do get a large strike in in the afternoon.  As well as some other strikes.   This at least proves my fighters can kill something!  I spotted these guys on a sweep just before starting the turn, and diverted the Kiddo Butai to intercept.  The have fewer planes, but still get some hits in.  Another light cruiser!  Less troops kills today.  Still a nice haul of ships though!
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
The Great Hebrides Turkey Shoot. Not even a single damaged Allied plane in that strike, dang.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
You have got to have some sort of air-to-air setting wrong somewhere Grey.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Still a very effective sortie, a good chunk of those damaged ships are going to go down and the rest are going to be tying up berths in harbors for a short spell. Now would probably be a good time to mount a strike against pearl, it will be so clogged with burning transports that they will never see your carriers coming!
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Now is the time to stick subs around every harbour and wait for the limping home.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
press F to pay respects to the Japanese fighter arm F
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
So what's going wrong here, other than the outdated air frames? Is the loss of experienced pilots hurting yet, or is there bound to be some misapplied setting? The longer this keeps going om the harder it'll be for land-based air to recover. RA Rx fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
RA Rx posted:So what's going wrong here, other than the outdated air frames? Is the loss of experienced pilots hurting yet, os is thrre bound to be some mis-applied setting? Outdated airframes depends on which plane we're talking about, and the same applies to whatever setting you mean. As for pilots losses, that's impossible to know without Grey doing some in-depth analysis on who's lost what, when, where, how they are being replaced, and what the training and commanders are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Outdated airframes depends on which plane we're talking about, and the same applies to whatever setting you mean. You mean he's not doing that? He's got a spreadsheet somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
jaegerx posted:You mean he's not doing that? He's got a spreadsheet somewhere. Well, from what we've seen he's just tracking points. Whether or not he's keeping track of every squadron in as detailed a manner remains to be seen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 02:54 |
|
|
Reuben Sandwich posted:For the naval historians. If the US Navy lost carrier superiority at Midway, would they have not attempted an offensive such as Tarawa we see here? I kind of was under the assumption that the Guadalcanal campaign was an offensive experiment given the US gained the upper hand at Midway. It was the first offensive of the war, the first time Japan didn't have the initiative, and served as an experiment but I don't think that was why they did it. It was motivated by Japan's construction of an airfield at Guadalcanal, given its proximity to the shipping lanes used to supply Australia. The protection of those shipping lanes was very high on the list of priorities for Admiral King. I doubt they would have done it if they didn't have at least parity with carriers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 02:59
|
|